[Med-privacy] EMRs

[Peter Marshall]

Original URL: =20
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/19/doh_sticks_to_opt_out/
DoH sticks to 'opt out' for patient e-records
By Kablenet
Published Tuesday 19th December 2006

The Department of Health (DoH) has stuck by the "implied consent" model =20=

for the central collection of electronic patient records in England, =20
but will provide support for those who want to opt out

Health minister announced the plan along with the publication of a =20
taskforce report (http://www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/publications/) =20=

on the Care Record Service on 18 December 2006.

Before records are uploaded onto the National Care Record Service =20
(NCRS), patients will be given a chance to view their records on a =20
section of the Healthspace website. They will be able to make =20
corrections, give their GP consent to upload the details, or choose to =20=

have them withheld.

If, after a "realistic" period, it would be assumed that those patients =20=

who have chosen not to view their summary care record are giving =20
implied consent for it to be shared in appropriate settings. The DoH =20
(http://www.dh.gov.uk/) did not specify the length of the period.

The move will be supported by a "robust" public information programme =20=

for the early adoption sites. This is due to begin in February 2007, in =20=

preparation for the launch of the pilot programme during the spring.

There has been a sometimes fractious debate about the plan to use the =20=

opt out model for the NCRS, which will provide a central electronic =20
record of details such as current medication, allergies and adverse =20
reactions. Some groups, including the British Medical Association, have =20=

argued for an opt in model in which the patient would have to give =20
explicit consent for the details to be uploaded.

The BMA produced a conciliatory reaction to the announcement. Its =20
chairman, James Johnson: "The recommendations in this report provide a =20=

good first step, and we look forward to building on this work and =20
learning more from the roll out of the early adopter phase which should =20=

help identify any further issues before the summary care record is =20
implemented across England in 2008.

"It is crucial to the success of the NHS Care Record that the anxieties =20=

of both patients and professionals are properly dealt with and that the =20=

wishes of patients are fully respected."

Warner also announced the establishment of an advisory group on the =20
implementation of the NCRS, to be chaired by Martin Marshall, deputy =20
chief medical officer. He said that the recommendation on a training =20
pack for staff was already being taken forward.

He added that the internet based HealthSpace, introduced in 2004, will =20=

be expanded and brought forward to be available in the summary care =20
record early adopter sites. It will enable the public, when registered =20=

as users, to view their summary care record. The taskforce recognised =20=

the opportunity this represents for a "true patient care record."

In addition, he announced the establishment of a National Information =20=

Governance Board to oversee the quality of information governance in =20
the NHS, to offer advice on confidentiality and security of patient =20
information, to monitor the implementation of the NHS Care Record =20
Guarantee and to advise the secretary of state. The board will be =20
chaired by Cayton and further details about the arrangements for the =20
new Board will be announced shortly.

Harry Cayton, the DoH director for patients, said: 'Members of the =20
taskforce agreed that the creation of the summary care record is a =20
tremendous opportunity to improve the safety, quality and efficiency of =20=

care for all patients but that it must be implemented with public =20
support and clinical confidence=85. We now have a clear way forward and =20=

will learn from the early adopter sites as we go along.'"

Sigurd Reinton, chairman of the London Ambulance Service NHS Trust and =20=

taskforce member, said: "In thinking about their options, I hope =20
people, especially the elderly and vulnerable, will bear in mind that =20=

if we have your information then paramedics, for example, will be able =20=

to offer the best possible treatment. It is the elderly and the =20
vulnerable who may miss out if they have to formally opt in."

The taskforce noted that, until it is possible to seal off parts of the =20=

record, it should only include non-sensitive information, and handling =20=

any sensitive information should be agreed with patients. It also =20
agreed that as the system matured the content of the record should =20
become more complete.

This article was originally published at Kablenet =20
(http://www.kablenet.com/kd.nsf/Frontpage/=20
AD59728A646B98608025724800548E80?OpenDocument).

[The Register]