Surely when someone is called for vaccination it is done from their NHS record and is recorded on their NHS record. I would have thought that this record contains all the information about their ethnicity so we will have this data?
openSAFELY (as above) and other data analysis projects indicate that this isn't accurate - depending on when (never mind if) data were collected there are no clear definitions.
NHS England has recently committed to data collection at point of vaccination and updating an electronic healthcare record accordingly. However, given that people would need to attend to do this, there's a potentially large hole there, and giving that information can not be made compulsory (issues of trustworthines, as above).
www.rpharms.com/about-us/news/details/RPS-welcomes-extra-BAME-vaccine-data-collection-
Prof. Partha Kar calling for improved action:
Let’s start with the JCVI priority list. The issue of ethnicity is mysteriously missing. For sure, there is a mention of its relevance – yet without the clear policy recommendation that the evidence base warranted…
It also opens the question of science. If you want to follow the science, the QCOVID risk engine did this. It takes age, sex and ethnicity into account. Yet it has been unceremoniously sidelined when building vaccine prioritisation lists…
…
Data released by the OPENSAFELY today shows the impact of all I have described above – the issue of variable uptake based on ethnicity. As ever, the NHS will be reactive to it, yet we could have taken this head on, for once ensuring the priority was given so all local systems made adjustments at the start, not seven weeks down the line.
www.pulsetoday.co.uk/views/coronavirus/when-will-leaders-act-on-ethnicity-data/