Is there such a thing as confidentiality any more?

All these years I've thought they were just being nosey.

I'd never thought of it like that Tegan!

If you've only got 'medicaly urgent' appointments available and the receptionist books in a patient with a verrucca that they've had for 6 months it might not leave another appointment for something potentially very serious [and the GP would not be best pleased either]. And urine samples go to different places depending on what they're for; it's most annoying for a patient to have to re do a test and bring it in because it should have been sent to the hospital and not given to a practice nurse. If booking a home visit, for example, the doctor needs to know what the problem is so they can make sure they have suitable medication with them. It's not easy being the go betwen between the patient and the doctor .

I don't think it is bad medical records are on computer.
I went to a local walk in centre a few weeks ago which I had never been to before and they got my records up in seconds.
I still think you have to tell the nurse about your health as she only sees you for a few minutes and can not read through everything.
I understand the major things flash up like allergies to certain medicines.
My only major problem is an allergy to insect bites and I have to go for about 2 lots of antibiotics a year.
This started in London in the early 80's and stopped for about 3 years when I came to Birmingham.
I am wondering if they are anything to do with the global warming as the problem started again in about 2007.

Frank

Not relating to the article but is anything 'Private' anymore?

Just looked at the article again (think it might have been updated) and it seems to me that if it is going to cost BUPA etc a minimum of £140 pp they are not going to do a lot with it especially as "The HSCIC said that it "only provides identifiable data when there is a lawful basis to do so, eg, with patient consent". Don't think I am bothered then.

To be fair I went into my local surgery today to book a double appointment with one of the doctors for a specific form of treatment, my usual doctor had written to me telling me to do so, and the receptionist asked what it was for, adding so that the doctor has the equipment and drugs ready when you arrive.

I think it is because this GP is so good at this minor procedure that every other GP in the practice send their patients to him for it rather than do it less expertly themselves. The receptionists are used to this happening and just check each double appointment so that if he is to exercise his particular expertise he is ready and prepared.

I am inclined to agree with you - my doctor's surgery is the same. I can sort of see their point of view though. The receptionist would probably be in trouble for arranging an emergency appointment for something relatively minor, so if the doctor isn't available to speak to, it is probably policy that a receptionist asks for more information. I can imagine, though, that it could be embarrassing discussing some things with a "lay" person.

Some years ago, I had to leave a urine sample at my doctor's reception desk. The receptionist asked in a loud voice in front of a full waiting room "Is it for pregnancy?" I should have said something to her but I answered meekly and slunk off.

A friend of mine just rang his GP and said he needed an urgent appointment and the receptionist asked what was wrong with him - definitely out of order in my book - none of her business! It is up to the doc to decide what is and what isn't urgent.

I have just caught up with this thread, and going back to the 'bracelet', my husband has a mediband which we bought on line from Australia. He is on Warfarin, and found carrying his idenitity card a bit of a bore. Since he has been wearing this, I have noticed one or two other people with them, they are just plastic bands which seem to be popular with the younger generation, (for no reason), and they seem to wear well. It is possible to get blank ones, with the necessary equipment to 'write on' whatever is appropriate. We are getting one for our son who does not talk, with just a telephone number of the people who care for him on it.

I do think that when people are diagnosed with something genetic (Chorea,retinosa pigmentosa, or certain types of breast cancer or thalassemia) they should know regardless of whether they want to or not as it will affect children they may have. And secrecy makes things a charter for blackmail. I do know someone who refuses to have aNHS identity but you have to have good health and good teeth and good eyesight and the ability to travel abroad for treatment.

Eloethan, it is that and careless security that worries me about the NHS plans.

... that should be they're free to...

ps thanks for interesting comment, you'll have to dig deep in that memory and write memoirs about life as a saturation diver (although some things are best remembered, hopefully with pleasure or amusement, in the still hours of personal reflection )

I suppose for me the resistance against the whole idea about "mining" and "drilling down" into information and projections of illnesses that may come in the future, comes down to: something's gonna get you, do you really want to live your life with that "maybe it will be x, y, or z" hanging over your head (plus the heads of your children). I'm talking about unpreventable and incurable illnesses. They free to warn me of life-threatening but preventable possible illness - that happens already, which is why I try to eat a healthy diet and take exercise.

I've a SIL in America who seems to spend her entire life at the doctors being investigated for something that may happen and then we have to fend off phone calls and emails imploring us to have those checks, the system there has her on the back foot, always afraid of "failing" the next test.

That's my opinion today, not saying I won't change it in the future. :P

FlicketyB I also would be perfectly happy for such information to be used for medical research purposes. However, I think the article states that there is a two-tier system whereby information can firstly be gathered, and then, when a further fee is paid, there is then the possibility that the information can be linked to specific people.

Blackmail, yes. It has happened already. There are many people who have, perhaps a history of mental illnesses or sexually transmitted diseases or abortions who for various reasons may most emphatically not want this information to become generally known, or may not want a spouse or child or parent to know. This leaves them open to blackmail or coercion under threat of having this information made public.

FlicketyB yes, I take the point about nosey neighbours, but blackmail? And any junk mail 'targeted' or otherwise ends up shredded for compost. Re cold callers I have a sign on my door that reads ' I shoot every third cold caller. The second one just left!'

Aka, companies targetting direct mail and cold calling using their knowledge of your medical conditions to plan their approach to you. A number of us also have, or have had, medical conditions that for a variety of reasons we would rather keep confidential and are not convinced that there is enough security and protection in the new system.

If too many people are able to access confidential records, some will undoubtedly star investigating it for personal curiosity reasons. 'I wonder why Mrs Nextdoor gets regular visits from the Health Visitor?', and when they have found out the information gets shared with the neighbour on the other side and then drifts into to the wider community or else is used for black amil or control purposes. This sort of behaviour has been recorded where people have had access to police and tax records. Health records will be far more widely accessed than police and tax databases making security on them much more likely to be breachd.

I think I'm losing the plot here. Why would anyone want data on a bunch of old elderly mature ladies and what could they possibly do with it that makes some of us alarmed?

Deedaa & Grannyknot You might think you cannot be pigeon holed or profiled but I think we all can be. Let me explain.
Many years ago a doctor from Stirling University was commissioned to profile the psychological make up of North Sea Saturation divers of which I was one. I stand to be corrected but as I recall it was a multiple choice question paper, around a thousand questions long and called a Phillips test. It was a long time ago and the memory is not as keen as it was. As mischievous young men do (schoolboyish) we answered the questions as contrarily as we could. i.e. we tried to answer the opposite of whatever we possibly could just to try and screw up the results.
At the debrief, once the results had been analysed and diseminated I can tell you that (although I did not admit it at the time) the description and analysis of my personality and habits was spot on. In fact it was too spooky for words, I was flabbergasted at how accurate the profile was but I pretended it was wrong. I can tell you it was not wrong, it detailed exactly how I felt and operated. I have never come accross anything like it before or since and much later 'out in the field' those of us who were profiled agreed that it was uncannily accurate in all our cases. For that reason alone I would never assume nobody could profile any one of us given sufficient data.

I think that if the data is going to be anonimised and used for epidemiological research then I am happy for my data to be used. It may provide information on disease patterns that may help me or my family in future years.

I am already a willing participant in two long term epidemiological studies, the Million Women survey and the Biobank Survey.

My worry is that I do not trust the government or their IT people to keep my data safe and anonimised. They have a very poor track record on such matters. Information on their system will be accessible to too many people to easily and from there to those accessing it downloading files illegally and selling them on is all too easy.

When my son became diabetic aged 13, we had a chunky mens type identity bracelet engraved with his medical condition, we didn't get the 'medic alert' one.

What happened was that 'medic alert' bracelets were superseded by modern technology. I think George Orwell and Aldous Huxley have got a lot to answer for!!

having just bought one for my daughter as recommended by her doctor, it was farmed out to an American company and ended up costing a lot of unexpected money for customs. So that is what has happened to them; people can't afford them! Also the quality is poor.

aka I overheard a GP saying recently - 'The system of wearing a "MedicAlert" bracelet which gave that sort of info (e.g. allergies) worked very well for many years, whatever has happened to that? If it ain't broke, don't fix it".