De-registered patient and medical records

[Pseudonym99]

If I am no longer registered at a GP practice, where would my medical records be kept?

#firstworldpriblems. OP, aren't you lucky that this is something you have the capacity to worry about? 90% of the world's population would live to have a problem like this!

Needless to say, priblems wasn't my intended spelling but capture that, data guys. I'm now off to medicate my ill child - thanks to the wonderful NHS that we have the privilege to use, whether we've contributed or not.

You sound like you have some huge dark secret you want to hide and do not want your previous history to be obtained by new gp . Sorry but it all just sounds hugely deceitful and crafty. Most people wouldn't care about medical records. As a practice manager I have dealt with people joining practices just to see if they can be prescribed opiotes as the previous surgery had stopped all prescriptions due to abuse . I obviously have no idea of your history (which may very well be innocent ) but something is not adding up and comes across as wanting to hide your past

Lol Domestic you are aware the NHS sells off hospital records called SUS/HES to private companies etc without consent? If patients withold information due to these issues then its both clinically unsafe and a potential waste of NHS resources if they receive inappropriate treatment or advice.

The nhs is a wonderful wonderful service and is there to help people and obtaining correct medical history is essential for patient health. That's it , nothing more ! It is there to help and protect you !!!

Here is some information on how HES data is made available, with links to the cost sheet. Plus the information on how requests for identifiable data are scrutinised.

This is an interesting thread, not least for the prevailing attitude that clinical assurance trumps all else.

The NHS doesn't understand what confidentiality really means. The moment they shout out your name in the waiting room, or put it on a screen that is visible to the other people there, they have breached your privacy. When they use a franking machine for post that identifies their organisation, they have breached your privacy and when a district nurse or midwife in uniform walks up your path, they have breached your privacy.

It's not actually possible to run the service and maintain true confidentiality and this should be properly acknowledged. For most of us, we accept the trade off, but it's not unreasonable or paranoid to decide that you don't want to.

I have an unusual name and I absolutely hate it when it is called out in the doctor's waiting room because for sure some of the other patients will repeat it, comment on it, notice it and remember it, possibly repeat it to others. It's completely unnecessary and just shouldn't happen.

I wonder what the response would be when the NHS (already underfunded) didn't try to generate income (used to treat sick people for free) -anonymised data is such a valuable resource and if OP thinks she's special, she should book a private appointment with someone to go through her concerns and not waste precious GP time on pointless, self serving, over entitled admin demands.
I too have worked as a practice manager and the data was so closely guarded. Patient confidentiality should always be strictly conserved but patient data for the better good should be used. It sounds like OP needs a cause. Maybe move to a country with no healthcare? Problem solved! Cheerio!!!

NHS Digital also ignored about 1 million patients who wanted to opt out of having their records sold to private companies. Emmerdale problem is patients do not know what is going on so cannot object. Emmerdale how do go about at your Practice notifying patients re QOF/CQRS under Fair Processing which is a legal requirement under the DPA? There is nothing on the GMS1.

Emmerdale wrong. In Helen's case SUS/HES had fully name, dob and address. It is sold in pseudo identifiable form that can be traced back to the individual. I remember being horrified reading about this.

Carabos the way round identifying patients in the waiting room would be to have a numbered ticket system like they do at supermarket deli counters. I wouldn't have thought it would cost that much to implement.

I have an unusual name and I absolutely hate it when it is called out in the doctor's waiting room because for sure some of the other patients will repeat it, comment on it, notice it and remember it, possibly repeat it to others. It's completely unnecessary and just shouldn't happen

So how would you like to be called by the doctor (this really is a genuine question), because surely whatever method is used, your name will be involved, whether it is by the doctor calling your name at the waiting room door or it being put on a large screen telling you to go to 'consulting room 2'.

Numbered ticketing is the answer.

We have last year sent out letters regarding confidentiality and have offered patients to opt in or out of sharing records

If you think it's wrong that your name gets shouted or displayed in the waiting room, what do you do about someone recognising your face when you walk thru the door?

Oh wait, you can wear Niqab. But then someone might still recognise your voice or shoes. Or even your car parked outside. Oh dear, perhaps everyone else should be made blind & deaf so there's no chance they might find out you ever went the doctor. How about one of those Men in Black Neuralyzers, just to be totally safe.

I have not read the full thread but what is the reason the op wants to start a whole new record ??? This is the issue ? Isn't it ??? Its not a debate about nhs or confidentiality but more over why the op wants to hide certain parts of her medical history. At least that's what I'm picking up from what iv read ???

If she doesn't want the NHS to know she sure ain't going to tell us.

Emmerdalefan - yes, I believe there is something recorded in her medical record that she doesn't want to be there. The question was whether it was possible to wipe the slate clean by opening a whole new medical record with no history.

Emmerdale that was not what I asking. How under Fair Processing under the DPA which is a legal requirement with fines of up to £500,00 do you inform patients their details/data will be collected and used for QOF/CQRS and put on the national database Open Exeter. The GMC also insists doctor have to make patients aware of any financial interests/conflicts and this is the case with QOF/CQRS cytology, vaccs, NHS Health Checks etc.

If the NHS was transparent OP would not have this issue.

It's fakenamefornow who has something she does not wish to be shared on her medical record, and so is self-medicating using drugs bought online.

Pseudonym99, the OP, wants a fresh start with the NHS, with a blank record over which she can then exercise the full set of privacy controls and make decisions about where/how to seek care on that basis.

llijkk my point is twofold. First, efforts that could be made to minimise loss of privacy are not made e.g. numbered ticketing system and second, that it is not possible to run the service in an environment of true confidentiality- this should be acknowledged, but isn't. The NHS bangs on and on about patient confidentiality but can't deliver.

Yes you could well be recognised by people in the waiting room, but that's my point- most of us accept the trade off.

How under Fair Processing under the DPA which is a legal requirement with fines of up to £500,00 do you inform patients their details/data will be collected and used for QOF/CQRS and put on the national database Open Exeter.

We have large posters up in our foyer and waiting room and information in our practice brochure which is given to new patients upon registration.

And the minimising of these valid concerns by sarcasm from some posters is concerning.

And for a practice manager to say that patient data should be used for the greater good is terrifying.