De-registered patient and medical records

[Pseudonym99]

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

It is the Health and Social Care Act (2012) which gives NHS England permission to extract data.

I suspect that to most people it isn't important carabos. Also, not knowing the circumstances it is difficult to understand why.

Both DD and OH have had unusual medical issues, and I for one, am jolly glad that data sharing occurs within the NHS. DD is one of 42 children with her condition and doctors don't know enough about it.

While I understand that the "Big Brother" issue is getting out of hand, I don't understand why someone would, for example, buy drugs online for an ongoing medical issue and never see a doctor about it.

Do your leaflets specifically talk about CQRS/QOF Open Exeter, screening etc and does it talk about how GP financially benefit from QOF/CQRS/Screening/vaccs etc? If it does well done however I very much doubt it does. I have yet to find a transparent GP Practice that adheres to the DPA and GMC legal regulations.. I have spent 4 years researching this issue.

I agree we aren't on the same page, carabos, but this is about honesty and OP isn't be honest about her true motives. There is a degree of implicit agreement when using a system like the NHS and I'm astounded by the self entitled claptrap coming from those who feel the use of a service that can save their lives should be totally free of any obligation, commitment or honesty. I suspect we'd all be pretty unmoved by the issue at the heart of this op's post -as I said, #firstworldproblems.

I have yet to find a transparent GP Practice that adheres to the DPA and GMC legal regulations

Can you show me exactly what the GMC legal regulations are? (again, this is a genuine question).

So would you like to be called by the doctor

Well, its not beyond the wit of the teenagers on the deli counter at Tescos, so someone who has been highly educated should be able to cope!

From the Caldicott Review again: The Review heard that de-identified data is of considerable benefit to commissioners, planners and researchers and that the public is broadly content for such information to be used for health and social care purposes. The comment about the greater good was made in reference to de-identified data and seems in line with the findings of the review.

I said former practice manager and didn't claim to have shared any data. It's all in the fine print.

On GMC web site there is a whole section on it. On my phone and the link is on my Desktop.

Well, its not beyond the wit of the teenagers on the deli counter at Tescos, so someone who has been highly educated should be able to cope!

Well, no. But with 15 clinicians working across a large building with several waiting rooms it would be fairly time consuming and complex to operate. Not impossible I agree, but a little more complex than the deli counter in Tesco.

Skying-yes H&SC Act does say that however it collides with DPA which has to be adhered too. The Act does not do what the government intended!

The teenager on the deli counter doesn't need to have access to your previous shopping history to advise you on today's purchase. Nor do you have an appointment with a particular deli counter teen. This doesn't make it impossible but the system would probably need to generate a number for you when you arrive at the practice (you would check yourself in at the kiosk to avoid having to say your own name of course) and then call out the number instead of your name in due course.

Why not join your patient reference group and suggest this innovation?

The "deli-style" ticket system doesn't really tie on with many healthcare settings & would be very time-consuming to implement, wasting precious clinical time for a tiny minority of patients who would prefer to be anonymous.

I have read the GMC guidance and I can't see where it specifically mentions that we should list QOF/CQRS etc in patient publicity about data sharing.

As far as GPs financially benefitting from these - GPs are paid to provide services within their contract and the measure used for this is QOF. So, yes, GPs are paid to do their job.

I agree that to most people it isn't important domestic , or not sufficiently important for them to act, but that doesn't mean that the service's inability to truly protect personal, sensitive information shouldn't be openly acknowledged. There are too many people on this thread suggesting that it is unreasonable to have concerns around this because y'know, we should just be grateful...

QOF is being phased out - it's already gone in Scotland - as it's no longer fit for purpose & outdated.

Actually - our clinical system allows us to put in a name the patient prefers to be known as. You could just ask to be known as '22' for instance!

QOF is being phased out - it's already gone in Scotland - as it's no longer fit for purpose & outdated

Yes, but at the moment we still have it.

moreprosecco we have no way of knowing how many people would prefer greater efforts to be made around privacy because nobody asks them. You are reaching when you claim it's a tiny minority . I bet quite a lot of people would rather not have their name on a public screen if there was an alternative - which there is.

I thought it might be here, Ohtobeskiing, Your doctors must obey the law and act honestly in financial and commercial matters.

Asking patients if they smoke in order to bag a few QOF points might be an example of this. However, I agree that in the main these are routine procedures for which the practice is compensated as per the contract in the same way Trusts are paid for performing breast screening exams.

carabos I've NEVER been asked about this in over 20 years of NHS practice as an AHP. Patients tend to ask about something if it's important to them. So that would suggest to me that it's very much a minority issue.

Yes GPs are financially benefit under the Contract so therefore patients need to told when for example you take a smear etc the GP benefits financially when they hit their targets. Data sharing comes under DPA so its a legal requirement under Fair Processing under the DPA. You are potentially in breach of the DPA by failing to inform patients how you are using their data. I challenged an NHSE Medical Director on this very recently it is correct. However GP Practices are not transparent. It will be challenged shortly!

Hardly a tiny minority issue when around 1 million patients contacted NHS Digital to stop their HES/SUS hospital records being shared.

Wasn't that on back of hype that the records would get sold to private businesses? I don't think it was worries that NHS staff would share the records with each other (which is what OP doesn't want).

we have no way of knowing how many people would prefer greater efforts to be made around privacy because nobody asks them

The Caldicott Review included patient groups within the organisations interviewed and also ran an online survey - see page 55.

The first of the next steps the report recommended is:
that the Department of Health conducts a full and comprehensive public consultation on the proposed data security standards and proposed new consent/opt-out model. The Review also recommends that professional bodies and patient representative groups are further involved in testing and refining both the one and two-question models with the public and professionals. This consultation and testing must precede asking members of the public if they wish to exercise the new opt-out model. The consultation should be as full and open as possible.

A consultation was then held, which according to a blog from October received 650+ responses.

Each CCG has a Patient Advisory Group, which is another way to provide feedback on issues around confidentiality and data security.