Opting out of the NHS central database

[woodbloke]

RogerM wrote:

I would be very surprised if there were not safeguards in place that would prevent anyone accessing records other than those applying to a patient that you are dealing with at a medical/treatment level

I'm with Roger here. I would have thought that confidential medical records would not be accessible for all and sundry to see, they will probably be code or password protected so that an individual could see his own record but no one elses, in much the same way that internet banking works at the moment - Rob

 

[Jake]

If I was bleeding to death the last thing that I'd want is the computer to say 'No' since the person trying to treat me doesn't have access authority. I want them to be treating me not fussing with a keyboard.

If you opt out, how can the computer say 'Yes'?

 

[Nick W]

As I see it there are two major problems.

Firstly, no software is bug free, and the bigger the system the more scope there is for f***-ups. Hackers will see it as a challenge to break into the system. If your bank's system gets broken into, you might loose some money, but will almost certainly get it back. So there might well be a lot of hassle involved but in the end no harm done. Would you feel the same about people knowing that you used to have a drugs problem, be an alcoholic, have had an STD etc...?

Secondly, once your data is in an NHS database how long will it be before the range of people allowed to access your records (or parts of them) begins to grow. The Taxman would probably like to double check that when you self-certified you were indeed ill: the DHSS could streamline invalidity benefit processing if it could link into the spine, and once they have access to that data they could decide if your illness is serious enough to warrant the benfits: Your pension contributions could be linked to familial predisposition to long life:

And so it grows.

 

[Anonymous]

a properly managed and safeguarded electronic system?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Nicks got the right idea

The permanently optimistic "nothing to worry about" view is sort of nice but dim. It assumes that the IT system will be hacker proof, fool proof, all the inputted information will be 100% correct and always 100% acurately updated, no mistakes, wrong names etc. I mean look at that baby died because the nurse read the doctors proscription wrong (they wrongly read a "U" for unit as an extra zero and gave the baby a 10x dose which was lethal. There'd be a lucrative sideline "deleting" sensitive stuff off a medical record for a reasonable fee of course. Also it assumes that there will be no malicious use of the system to quibble on insurance claims, benefit's etc by having acess to confidential personal records, or misuse by pro death doctors such as shipman (or my ex local one who was convicted of killing several patients) to look up ways of finding a person's weak spot to euthanise them away so it looks like natural causes?? Or getting sensitive information to blackmail prominent people etc etc. What if you disagree with what the doctor/s wrote? What rights if any will you have to challenge this? Will you in fact be permitted to see whats on your record? What if the system crashes and your record gets lost? I have absolutely NO confidence in this.

 

[Noel]

This is an interesting topic and no doubt has aspects which many of us feel are important, especially concerning health, our doctors and the proposed storage, distribution and accessability of our medical records. So please continue to discuss the topic. Granted, it's difficult not to stray into political and party political discussion and but I have absolute faith that we can all keep to the topic in question without lampooning, criticizing or indeed praising the present incumbents of Downing Street. Want to get into politics, go off and join in whatever Any Questions is on about at the moment but please do not do so here.
As I mentioned I'm sure we can have an informative and friendly discussion on the issues at hand. Can't we?

 

[Freetochat]

a properly managed and safeguarded electronic system?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Nicks got the right idea

The permanently optimistic "nothing to worry about" view is sort of nice but dim. It assumes that the IT system will be hacker proof, fool proof, all the inputted information will be 100% correct and always 100% acurately updated, no mistakes, wrong names etc. I mean look at that baby died because the nurse read the doctors proscription wrong (they wrongly read a "U" for unit as an extra zero and gave the baby a 10x dose which was lethal. There'd be a lucrative sideline "deleting" sensitive stuff off a medical record for a reasonable fee of course. Also it assumes that there will be no malicious use of the system to quibble on insurance claims, benefit's etc by having acess to confidential personal records, or misuse by pro death doctors such as shipman (or my ex local one who was convicted of killing several patients) to look up ways of finding a person's weak spot to euthanise them away so it looks like natural causes?? Or getting sensitive information to blackmail prominent people etc etc. What if you disagree with what the doctor/s wrote? What rights if any will you have to challenge this? Will you in fact be permitted to see whats on your record? What if the system crashes and your record gets lost? I have absolutely NO confidence in this.

Whatever system is in place there will always be someone who knew someone who has had a negative experience. This of course hides the thousands of successes. You mention prescription errors, but in your own words this was human error. Shipman and the like would probably have been more easily detected with a computer system able to produce statistics. No matter what system is in place there will always be errors, there will always be criminals who will break into a system, but in the majority of cases it works. Computer records already exist, they are just not joined up. As to information being distributed, it already is. Just a simple thing like TV Licensing is contracted to Capitva, who has administration in India with access to every household address in the UK. The list can go on, but he point is made.

 

[Anonymous]

You mention prescription errors, but in your own words this was human error.

So theres no room for error in the new system then?? A scenario like I described could just as easily happen with a superstate computerised IT records sytem. I dont suppose they will have computers that can input all their own data will they?

At the risk of making a "political" :roll: comment, the human error issue is of vital importance wether that be in relation to old style paper work, or a proposed new IT records system. It will be humans who input all the data from the old "paper" system initially and also do regular updates every time you see a doctor/receive treatements/medications etc (or have I got this wrong?). If the people who do that job are indifferent/incompetent/have a poor grasp of English language etc, you could have some very unfortunate outcomes. So a faulty human error amending your record will result in a computer error. Patient X was on such and such a drug at so and so dosage (only the amount was typed up wrong, or mixed up with another patient) another doctor sees this, prescribes again, and disaster strikes :shock: .

Just because information is "already being distributed" doesnt necessarily mean its a good thing. Thats just a cant beat em join em argument. The only people I want to see my medical record are my doctor/s and any other relevant health professionals, I dont want it opened up so that other agencies with absolutely no need to see it are in an easier position to do so at some point in the future, even if they are willing to pay a fee to the g********t for the privelidge, or use opportunistic and manipulative social engineering to create a "need" for such access.

 

[Noel]

Here's a Q & A on the issue:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health ... 086693.ece

Earlier this year I had cause to ring up HMR & C about my NI payments. Managed to eventually speak to a human being in Yorkshire and he went through the usual security ritual, which I do understand is necessary. Anyway I failed the security test. Sorry, go and pay a visit to your local office. Why did I fail? Can't tell you. can you give me a clue? Nope.
So took a day off work and made the journey to a "local" office, 3 hr round trip. Went through the same palava and got nowhere. Unable to trace a SS number from a name despite having my passport with me. Even supplying my SS number had little effect. Eventually got the nice lady to accept that I was who said I was and it transpired that my records had my birth date wrong by a day or two. New computer system and human error was to blame.
The lady did tell me a wee story. The DHSS (or whatever there current title is) had only recently installed extra security precautions in the previous few weeks. This was something similar to joining / subcribing to a website where random numbers/letters are generated and these have to be inputted in order to retrieve information from the computer system
This was because various Social Security offices around the country were receiving calls apparently from other offices requesting information. Of course these calls were from ID theft merchants blagging their way onto the system. Apparently going on for sometime before anything was done about it. Now each office has identical random codes that they can compare before any information is released.
Two little stories which I suspect are the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Anonymous]

Interesting experiences Noel. As you sudgested I had a read of the piece in the "independent" (independent from what, being a left wing liberal rag, its bound to put super-statism in a favourable light I think :lol: ?) but frankly the presentation doesnt give me any confidence or assurance that these proposed changes are really worthwhile, workable, reliable etc. I have learned to treat such PR spinning statements issuing forth, with a shovel full of salt, and that they often in fact mean the opposite. My interest is to know the real reason why its so necessary to have this, and other superstate intrusive elements at work nowadays. Its a simple and valid question (which mysteriously makes some people nervous and angry); just why do all the various state agencies "need" to have greater levels of invasion into individual privacy, why do they feel the need to scrutinise and influence our lives more closely than ever?

 

[Anonymous]

The DHSS (or whatever there current title is)

Department of stealth and total obscurity :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks, Fred. I was a bit surprised as well. Maybe folks aren't worried about agency staff (aka the next door neighbour, the bloke down the pub) having a decko at their medical records

Worried??? I really couldn't care less!!!

I'm sorry Tony but that is the attitude that has allowed our basic freedoms to be gradually eroded over the last few years.

I did start to write a bit more here but it was turning into a diatribe against the current government and the 'couldn't care less' and 'if you've nothing to hide why are you worried' people so I thought it would be better to leave it at that.

What I mean is I couldn't care less who knows my medical history. I'd happily post it here for all to see.

I see no problem with this system and many potential benefits

 

[Paul Chapman]

For me the issues concern competence and trust. Over the years, successive governments have demonstrated time and time again that they are incompetent when it comes to managing IT and other projects. On top of this, they have totally lost my trust (and I suspect that of many other people). There are far too many people who have had their lives ruined by government experts, systems and agendas.

This is all very sad because, as Tony says, there would be many benefits from a system like the NHS database. However, for me it has reached a point where the competence and trust issues outweigh the system benefit issues.

Rant over :ho2

Paul

 

[Newbie_Neil]

Hi Paul

For me the issues concern competence and trust.

All you doubters shouldn't worry, as this project has a magnificent chance of failure.

Why, oh why, are we tackling the largest computer project in the world? IIRC every large world-leading IT project that this country has been involved with has failed, or been badly delayed for one reason or another.

For the system to become a success it has to be accepted by it's users and, I believe, that the only way for this to happen is for it to be implemented, as bug-free as possible, in manageable stages that provide an immediate benefit.

Optimistic Neil

 

[Paul Chapman]

All you doubters shouldn't worry, as this project has a magnificent chance of failure.

Trouble is, even when it fails they'll carry on regardless and keep patching it up - that's if they can find an A&E unit that's still open :roll:

Cheers :ho2

Paul

 

[RogerS]

Hi Paul

For me the issues concern competence and trust.

All you doubters shouldn't worry, as this project has a magnificent chance of failure.

Why, oh why, are we tackling the largest computer project in the world? IIRC every large world-leading IT project that this country has been involved with has failed, or been badly delayed for one reason or another.

For the system to become a success it has to be accepted by it's users and, I believe, that the only way for this to happen is for it to be implemented, as bug-free as possible, in manageable stages that provide an immediate benefit.

Optimistic Neil

Reading the computer press (who admittedly like many other publications will/may have their own agenda) the story goes something like this.

Blair invited leading computer and IT experts to a meeting to outline the scope of the project, how long it would take etc. The IT experts (many with significant projects under their belt) all said 'three to four years and implemented in stages'. Blair then said ' That's not good enough, I want it done in two' whereupon the self-appointed egotist who is now leading the project (and whose name escapes me) said 'me Sir..me Sir...I can do it...I can do it' and the rest will probably be history.

Now this is not aimed at Blair per se but against MP's of all parties who want their pet IT projects carried out yesterday and against the civil service who do not/will not manage down MPs expectations to something that is more reasonable/viable/practical/achievable. Time and again, while working at the Home Office, I saw ill-conceived projects conjured up out of thin air simply because the Minister of the day had had a bright idea during cocktails at some toady's soiree. That, to my mind, is the basic reason why Govt IT projects go off the rails.

That and the fact that Govt procurement will nearly always select the cheapest quote regardless as to fitness-for-purpose.

 

[Anonymous]

As may be aparrent from the tone of my posting's I am not of the "persistently optimistic utopian" school of thought. :lol: :lol: Age and experience has taught me that life is harder and crueller than many humanists would like us to think it is. That applies particularly to motives that people have for doing things in my view. It has to be said that there ARE plausible PR spin selling points in favour of a super state centralised data base, such as quick notification of drug or other allergies, what surgery has been done in the past, what medication has been given in the past etc etc (but even that simple function falls apart the minute human errors and faults enter the equation). I take the more cynical view that the project, like many imposed by the g********t is primarily about raising money, in this instance from selling access to a complete national health data base to drug companies/ medical and other types of researchers etc. They could instantly obtain commercially useful information that would normally be impossible to obtain, especially the ability to compare different regions/social conditions etc. What quicker and easier way than to approach the dept of health, and purchase the files for a fee?

 

[RogerS]

Interesting slight digression on online sceurity..

Having moved out of London, I need to do change of address routine for financial companies etc. I also need to close down the utility accounts and get the final bill.

Finance companies often require proof of new address...like a utility bill. But the electricity company does not...so EDF send me my final bill at the new address. So if I want to nick someones identity... I intercept their electricity bill...dead easy if you live in a block of flats and the postman is too lazy to put the mail through the flat doors. The bill gives me the account number. I ring up the electricity company and close the account. Ask to send final bill to a bogus address.

Utility bill arrives at bogus address. I then use that utility bill to divert other mail/ring up finance companies and get my address changed etc etc.

 

[MilkyBarKid]

I'm with the opt out brigade - this system is supposed to allow many different types of civil servants & police access to medical records. The recommended security protocols haven't been implemented. The "looks like" searching mechanism effectively means that unauthorised searches could be made to look genuine, and searchers could just claim to have made a mistake.

People may feel they've nothing to hide, but if you've got mental health problems, aids etc etc. you probably don't want your neighbours - or co-workers or anyone else other than clinicians to know abut it.

I was told my young neighbour had an abortion when I was too young to know that I should have reported the gossipers, and that kind of abuse is extremely common. Most receptionists and even cleaners have access to paper medical records in many practices.

Medical records are extremely vulnerable and I can't see any government IT system making them more secure. The government managed to get access to supposedly priviledged medical records a few years ago to undermine public support for people who had caused the PM some embarrasment. It would be much easier for them if they had control of the whole IT systems.

I believe that A&E departments already have access to GP medical records.

MBK

 

[sliver]

Basically, what it boils down to is that ANY system, however well protected can be open to abuse by people with a vested interest. A neighbour who lives in my street works at my surgery, has she lookd at my medical data? I don't know, I guess I just have to trust her until anything comes to light. By then it's too late. Rest assured people, we are trusting people every single day with personal info. Our lives would not run smooth without these people. We HAVE to trust them. It is only when that trust is abused that we should get angry, but by then it is usually too late.....Anyone remember Nick Leeson?

Roger, I respect your concerns as you always seem to make sense in your posts. However, I think this one has to be a matter of personal taste.

Cheers, Sliver

 

[Anonymous]

is primarily about raising money, in this instance from selling access to a complete national health data base to drug companies/ medical and other types of researchers etc. They could instantly obtain commercially useful information that would normally be impossible to obtain, especially the ability to compare different regions/social conditions etc.

That's it exactly!!! Well done for spotting this one!

I understand that the Americans never landed on the moon either