NHS database opt out

[Patma]

The Big Opt Out » About the campaign

If anyone is interested in finding out the implications of the new NHS database, this is an amazing resource. I was horrified to find out what is about to happen.

There's a template letter you can use to inform your GP that you wish to opt out of at least some of the new big brother database.

I recommend everyone should inform themselves of what's in store and act on it now if you don't like what you read.

[Conniff]

I don't mind at all. What can be so terrible about someone knowing you went to a VD clinic?

 

I would like to think that if I went to say Grimsby for a holiday (I can't think why I would want to), and I collapsed and was taken to hospital that the dr would have access to my medical records allowing him to administer the correct treatment.

[Patma]

Perhaps if you read a little bit more about the new database you would realise it's about a whole lot more than that.

[Conniff]

There is a lot of scaremongering about this just as there is in most things that are new.

 

 

 

Your medical confidentiality is at risk from this new database, as over a million NHS employees and central government bureaucrats will have access to not only your medical records but also your demographic details name, address, NHS Number, GP details, phone number (even if it’s ex-directory) and mobile number.

 

I don't believe all these millions will have access. It is an 'intranet' and password controlled and only those with the need to access the records will be given a password. Any access will be logged by the system so everyone who accesses it for any reason will have their name and rank, recorded along with the time and date that they looked and the exact information that they looked at.

 

I don't see what this thing is about names, addresses and telephone numbers, they are in the phone book for free and for anyone to look at. There will be no record of an ex directory number unless they gave it to there doc.

The electoral roll is also available in public libraries.

 

Anything said is purely speculation anyway.

[Mrs_Ryan]

As an NHS employee, I have to say I can see both the pro's and cons of this.

 

I think it could be open to abuse possibly - however by the same token as Conniff pointed out if you went on holiday somewhere - for example I was in London last year and had an accident, and I was taken to hospital, it would have been helpful for the doctors who treated me to be able to see the medication I was on so they could treat me appropriately etc rather than have to answer a load of embarrassing questions in full earshot of a packed waiting room. And I only had a dislocated toe, I felt really sorry for the bloke in front of me who had an infection after a complicated vasectomy!!!!

 

From what I can gather it will be strictly controlled and information would be on a strictly-need-to-know basis. Most GP surgeries have electronic records as well as paper records so where's the difference?!

[maybelline]

Perhaps if you read a little bit more about the new database you would realise it's about a whole lot more than that.

 

I feel very uncomfortable about the amount of data sharing (and losing) that is growing at a vast rate, many people have expressed concern about the potential for missuse of this resource and the possibility of 'mix ups' and glitches in systems we know can be all too fallible.

[poppynurse]

From a nurse's viewpoint this database will be valuable, we often get folk admitted who are in extremis and unable to tell us their history, medication or allergies - having this info will enable us to treat them more effectively and safely.

[maybelline]

£12billion | NHS computer system | Crooks access NHS database | The Sun |News

BBC NEWS | Health | GPs threaten to snub NHS database

[Alipeeps]

It's no different from the electronic databases maintained already by every medical institution, including your GP and any hospital you visit. It merely means that this information can be shared between the various hospitals/trusts etc instead of every single place maintaining their own separate records, increasing the likelihood of data going missing/not being properly shared between institutions when it needs to be.

 

As has been stated above (and I speak from experience as a former admin worker in a District General Hospital) these database systems (such as PAS - Patient Administration System) are limited to secure password access and only authorised employees have access to the database and the system will record who logs in and who accesses what records and when.

 

Whereas any system is open to abuse if someone is determined enough (but there's nothing to stop an authorised user at your GP or local hospital accessing your records on the current database if they wanted to), I believe any cons are outweighed by the pros of having your full medical history available to the doctors treating you, wherever you may be. I'd certainly like to think, for example, that if I was admitted to hospital somewhere away from home and was e.g. unconscious and unable to give a medical history, details of e.g. my penicillin allergy would be available to the medical staff treating me.

[stardust_john]

I think it will be a good idea for people like me who get confused and often cant relay what meds on or whats actually happened. As often when recovering from seizure I am in la la land.

[maybelline]

The Big Opt Out » About the campaign

If anyone is interested in finding out the implications of the new NHS database, this is an amazing resource. I was horrified to find out what is about to happen.

There's a template letter you can use to inform your GP that you wish to opt out of at least some of the new big brother database.

I recommend everyone should inform themselves of what's in store and act on it now if you don't like what you read.

 

Police DNA database 'is spiralling out of control' | UK news | The Observer

 

this is an interesting link re dna database, also controversial for obvious reason, if you consider what this confirms, that peoples dna is being given to researchers in what looks like criminal profiling - one only has to think back to the worst atrocities of WWII to realise how dangerous genetic profiling can be, insurance companies will want to know who is likely to be ill, has a heart condition etc (nhs database will provide this no problem) nhs is a very very big organisation, its not just hospitals - information is currently being collected and used in ways that are not always IMO best for those who do not even know where it is going or for what use.

[Guest forgottenone]

Oh, well ... nobody is learning lessons with data in the UK are they ... what was it in US this week? 40 million details abused by a criminal gang? And everyone thinks it will be 'safe' ... the technology isn't ready ... nor are the resources in place to handle any serious security breach ... laughably, a data tape containing every patient at a GP's recently was stolen ... the pathetic excuse was 'oh, it was encrypted so no one could use it anyway ...' yeah, why they stole it really, wasn't it? Gonna use it as an Xmas decoration, tree etc. Get real for God's sake!

 

And also for God sakes ... local county councils are asking parents to apply on line - yes online of the stupidest places of all! - for their children, which school to attend ... the naivety demonstrated by these people is not only alarming but staggeringly disturbing!

 

Then there was the debacle over the doctor's website for new candidates ... more and more faith is being put into these systems. I will also add that the NHS is presently unable to deal or even process the thousands of CRB checks meant to be done BEFORE employing people in what should be sensitive positions eg access to patients just being one concern. There now exists a backlog which will take forever to finish ... Yet the people were employed BEFORE the checks were completed. What a mockery it has all become.

 

Then there's the MOD, MPs laptops going 'walkabout' ... if anyone honestly thinks data is safe with all these 'judgemental' lapses going on ... Then there's the abuse of terrorism laws by local councils to prosecute fly tippers, dog fouling ... not to mention using RIPA *if I got the name correct, which I doubt* to monitor parents applying to schools in the local area. Things which were meant to prevent terrorism instead being used for very trivial purposes. Abuse abuse abuse!

 

Then there's something called 'temptation. Next door neighbour falls out with the other neighbour ... they just happen to work for either the council or somewhere they have access to your private matters through a database ... oops! What fun those people are going to have making your life hell! Yes, it does happen - I witnessed it over 10 years ago working for the DWP! And much more besides I have found out since and have discovered goes on.

 

Data safe??? : You may as well throw all your documents out in the street it's that 'safe'. Not scaremongering here ... it is already happening. Right now. Because there are so many many things that can go wrong ... it's just not ready. Yet they try to ram things through before it is ... if there is doubt about it working, then it shouldn't be implemented until it IS fully secure. Or most sensible people would assume so ... still, I'm not some dandy data analyst getting paid £££ per year by the NHS, or county council ... just out of Oxbridge with no working knowledge of the world, what pitfalls there are ... first hand experience etc ... invaluable to some at times ... to come up with these ideas.

 

Incidentally, these databases are and are already being used to gather data on people way beyond their original parameters ... by 'stealth' springs to mind here.

[demon_x_slash]

For opt-out templates, please see this thread.

[Mrs_Ryan]

I will also add that the NHS is presently unable to deal or even process the thousands of CRB checks meant to be done BEFORE employing people in what should be sensitive positions eg access to patients just being one concern. There now exists a backlog which will take forever to finish ... Yet the people were employed BEFORE the checks were completed. What a mockery it has all become.

 

I was quite interested to read this here, F1.

 

I have just started working as a healthcare assistant on a ward for elderly dementia patients, and although I was told I was the 'preferred candidate.' I wasnt actually officially employed until all my checks had come back. Which they did in a fairly short period of time. Yes, I have been told (not by anyone I work with i hasten to add) that they are doing this in SOME areas of the NHS, ie employing people without the checks, but the vast majority arent risking the safety of patients etc.

[maybelline]

Chaos as £13bn NHS computer system falters | Society | The Observer

[poppynurse]

I was successful at interview at the edn of April, allowed to start post because I already worked in the same trust and my CRB check came back on 10th August - seems the CRB need to pull their finger out!

[mree]

I don't mind at all. What can be so terrible about someone knowing you went to a VD clinic?

 

I would like to think that if I went to say Grimsby for a holiday (I can't think why I would want to), and I collapsed and was taken to hospital that the dr would have access to my medical records allowing him to administer the correct treatment.

 

Thank God - some common sense! I bet the people who opt out of this would be the first to sue when something happens which could've been prevented if they hadn't opted out.

[m_c1965]

I opted out of this months ago!

 

Although I have nothing really to hide, I don't want my nursey (and nosey) neighbours and more distant family being able to check what I've had done at the doctors.

 

Bear in mind everyone with access to the system will have access to everyone's details.

 

I can see the benefits of this, but I don't trust the "keepers" to keep my information safe or all of the "users" to use it for what it is intended.

[heartopp]

I was quite interested to read this here, F1.

 

I have just started working as a healthcare assistant on a ward for elderly dementia patients, and although I was told I was the 'preferred candidate.' I wasnt actually officially employed until all my checks had come back. Which they did in a fairly short period of time. Yes, I have been told (not by anyone I work with i hasten to add) that they are doing this in SOME areas of the NHS, ie employing people without the checks, but the vast majority arent risking the safety of patients etc.

 

The same was done for me, but its all down to risk assesment by the ward manager!

[mree]

I opted out of this months ago!

 

Although I have nothing really to hide, I don't want my nursey (and nosey) neighbours and more distant family being able to check what I've had done at the doctors.

 

Bear in mind everyone with access to the system will have access to everyone's details.

 

I can see the benefits of this, but I don't trust the "keepers" to keep my information safe or all of the "users" to use it for what it is intended.

 

I'm sorry, but this is a load of b*llocks - NHS trusts conduct regular audits of who's accessed which records when, they are very good at spotting when someone's accessed a record without a valid reason, and I know of people who were sacked for doing this when our computerised records system first came in. For that reason (plus the fact that most NHS employess are, in fact, trustworthy), I have never come across anyone, on any ward I've worked on, accessing patient records out of anything other than clinical need.

 

But hey, at least when someone's away from home, dying from an allergic reaction to a medication after an emergency admission to A&E, they can go on their way safe in the knowledge that at least their neighbour the nurse won't be able to read about it when doing her nightly snooping into his medical records!

[My Real Name]

Thank God - some common sense! I bet the people who opt out of this would be the first to sue when something happens which could've been prevented if they hadn't opted out.

You lose any credibility for your opinions by making absurdly facile claims like that.

 

I'm sorry, but this is a load of b*llocks - NHS trusts conduct regular audits of who's accessed which records when, they are very good at spotting when someone's accessed a record without a valid reason, and I know of people who were sacked for doing this when our computerised records system first came in. For that reason (plus the fact that most NHS employess are, in fact, trustworthy), I have never come across anyone, on any ward I've worked on, accessing patient records out of anything other than clinical need.

Password sharing much?

 

Systems need to be designed with the assumption that people will break them. Not with the assumption that each and every user will follow arbitrary usage rules.

 

Your own personal experience may be one of honesty, trust and best practice, but this is often not replicated elsewhere.

 

But hey, at least when someone's away from home, dying from an allergic reaction to a medication after an emergency admission to A&E, they can go on their way safe in the knowledge that at least their neighbour the nurse won't be able to read about it when doing her nightly snooping into his medical records!

Then it would be daft for someone with known allergies to opt out (if the allergies were unknown, it wouldn't make much of a difference), or not carry some form of notice of their allergies. Personal responsibility must still carry some weight, surely.

 

Extrapolating from your own experience, or from a limited straw man, does not refute the suggestion that people be given the choice to opt out of Spine / ECRs.

 

To address another fallacy posted above:

 

Information maintained by hospitals / GPs is local. There is accountability and control that cannot be replicated on a nationwide scale.

 

Of course any system is open to abuse. The larger the system, however, the larger the potential for abuse. Imagine if an insurance provider gained access to even a part of the database.

 

The Big Opt Out does not advocate that no such sharing should exist, but that individuals have the right to not participate.

 

It also highlights the dangers of vast, centralised, one-size-fits-all databases.

[MrShed]

Theres so much scaremongering on this thread!!

 

Yes, security breaches occur. But by that token, NO-ONE should hold ANY data on ANYONE. As part of a team who deals with IS security, it is very well known that security is a constant balancing act between restrictive security preventing functionality, and open security allowing functionality but allowing potential security breaches. If someone is determined enough though, they WILL access your data, no matter how strong the security.

 

To say everyone has access to everything is a complete fallacy - it will clearly be used in the way all business databases are administered - i.e. minimum access given only to those who require it. Yes, some people will share passwords, but this is minimal(irrespecitve of scaremongering that it is widespread), and generally will allow access to only a very small subset of the data.

 

On a seperate note, the accusation above about the NHS employing people requiring CRB checks before the checks are completed is, in my opinion, a very serious one, and I would suggest that the poster posts something to back up the allegation....otherwise, it is tantamount to libellous behaviour.

[My Real Name]

Theres so much scaremongering on this thread!!

Not so much scaremongering, as challenging the premise for the database, and challenging the specifics of its implementation.

 

Simply calling those arguments scaremongering does nothing to refute them.

 

Yes, security breaches occur. But by that token, NO-ONE should hold ANY data on ANYONE. As part of a team who deals with IS security, it is very well known that security is a constant balancing act between restrictive security preventing functionality, and open security allowing functionality but allowing potential security breaches.

Nobody is suggesting that no data be held. That's a scenario of your own design. The suggestion is that the data be held proportionately and accountably, and that individuals may exercise their right to not be included.

 

If someone is determined enough though, they WILL access your data, no matter how strong the security.

And, as I pointed out, the wider the scope of the database, the wider the scope for abuse.

 

There will always be a trade off between security and functionality - However, the specification of the proposed database does not make adequate provision for security, a concern that is magnified by the sensitive nature of the information held.

 

If adequate security is not possible without punitive restrictions on functionality, the premise for the database is flawed. As part of a team who deals with IS security, you would know that, if a project has a fundamental flaw, it does not go ahead.

 

National IT schemes are, and have always been, ill conceived and poorly implemented. The costs notwithstanding, the string of IT related fubars over the past few years ought to be of concern.

 

To say everyone has access to everything is a complete fallacy - it will clearly be used in the way all business databases are administered - i.e. minimum access given only to those who require it. Yes, some people will share passwords, but this is minimal(irrespecitve of scaremongering that it is widespread), and generally will allow access to only a very small subset of the data.

Widespread password sharing is a documented and known issue - suggesting otherwise is to ignore the abundant evidence. The existence of password sharing calls into doubt the reliability of any access audit.

[MrShed]

 

Nobody is suggesting that no data be held. That's a scenario of your own design. The suggestion is that the data be held proportionately and accountably, and that individuals may exercise their right to not be included.

 

You are not suggesting it, others in this thread are implying so.

[MrShed]

Widespread password sharing is a documented and known issue - suggesting otherwise is to ignore the abundant evidence. The existence of password sharing calls into doubt the reliability of any access audit.

 

Define "widespread". As a percentage, I think you will find it to be minimal.