Types of people who ‘protect’ data

When it comes to medical privacy there is often a lot of talk from those who want to share/access identifiable data about how data will be protected and they can control access. Unfortunatley these are often grouped into 3 different groups.

1. There are those who have a low standard of protection. An example of this would be most GPs. GPs often tell patients that what they learn in the course of their work will go no further and their records are protected, yet a lot will often start telling people about tye patient so the information can get into the patients records, as one of my ex GPs said “doctors do not do notes, that is someone elses job”. In other words, the min the patient leaves, the GOP will tell someone else. I have also found that most calldicott Gaurdians come under this group. As with GPs, their standard of aproprate sharing of data is often far lower than what patients think and when it comes to privacy, they rarely, if ever, will hear both sides of any complaint, usually deciding to side with their friends who also have a low standard. This is further complicated in that they are often paid by the people they are overseeing even though this creates a conflict of interest. Who have to ask whos interest they have at heart, their own or that of the patient? Unfortunatly I have found they have the interest of their own at heart and most would rather protect the reputation of health workers and the NHS than tell the truth. This group of people are the low of the low as far as I am concerned. they lie to patients to obtain data/carry out examinations and when patients do get told they ether attempt to make the patient think it is for their own good and those patients that see past this Bull are given 2 simple choices, ’share or die’. This group will also often share data so that it can be passed to others for targets or payments. In some cases it will be identifiable but even if it is not, the people accessing the records to get it will have access to the identity of the patient.
2. There are those who think they have a high standard by are not aware of what is being shared. An example of this are some Calldicott Gaurdians and some health workers (not all are scum, just most). Some will tell you that when it comes to the police and social services they will tell them to ‘get stuffed’. Whilst this seems good, they are often unaware of data sharing. for example data from the new Summary Care Record in the NHS in England will be copied in a way that police and social services have access. This means that when they tell the police or SS to ‘get stuffed’, the police and SS will simply access the data from somewhere else (such as SUS) or they will alreday have the information anyway. At the same time anti-privacy laws/legislation in the UK is being introduced faster, meaning any promise about privacy is no protection. Other groups of people that come under this are those who work in Sexual Health Clinics. These people are often unaware that identifiable data can be shared with researchers, but I have to say that some will know but simply not tell the patient
3. The last, and by far the smallest group, are those who do protect data. These people are far and few between. they will store data in a way that others can not access and they will stand up to those who demand it. Some will even not record data. An example of this are some therapist. If you wanted some therapy, you can often tell the person you are seeing that you do not want anyone else to know what you are there for. Whilst some will refuse to see you unless you ‘consent’ to notes being kept others will agree not to keep notes (the disadvatage of keeping notes is that they can be accessed under some UK laws by others. Although this does not happen often, it is staill a risk). Some of those that demand they make notes willl often make them very brief and a broad outline.

Sample medical questionaire

medical questionaire

As far as the health profession and MSPs are concerned, this sort of questionaire is perfectly fine. Even the Information Commissoners Office seems to think this is fine.

If you notice option Q, it will be apparent that you must disclose all medical conditions/problems. That measn if you are not prepared to duisclose your thrush from 3 years ago or now, then you can not apply for the job. Thrush is unlikely to be relevant, but they are allowed to know it.

 This goes directly to the employer and can be read by anyone you give the form to or whoever the emjployer allows to handl it. The job is serving customers and stacking shelves.

Example 1

A girl becomes sexually active but does not want anyone other that her GP knowing. In most practices, that would not be allowed. The girl then become pregnant but wants a termination. She is now faced with 3 choices.
1) Tell the GP and allow her (or him if they chose not to see a female doctor) to share the data.
2) Try and force a miscarriage and not report it.
3) Go to a back street abortionist which may not be done safely and she runs the risk of being abused.
I for one think the latter 2 choices are dangerous and I find it appalling that the health profession seem to think these are 2 viable options.

Illegal abortions still take place in the UK. What has to be asked, yet the health profession refuse to ask, is, are illegal abortions taking place in the UK because the health profession refuse to allow access for legal abortions unless the woman agrees to inform others? If the answer is yes, then the health profession can/should be held responsible for illegal abortions. In other wards, the buck stops with the health profession. 

Example 2

Parents decide to take out insurance, including insurance for their children. As part of the application the applicants must disclose medical data. One of the children says no and as a result the application is refused. The parents then use presure on the child and the child decides to say yes. Is that consenual? I don’t think it is. Whilst it is unlikely that a 4 year old will be able to make a informed choice, what about a 14 year old? 14 year olds can make life changing choices, so why can they be forced to realease data? If there is something they don’t want their parents or others to know, then they don’t have much chance of keeping it from them and should they be forced to tell others? Don’t chiildren have rights?If the parents want to make a claim for an injury but the child refuses to allow the GP to release some info and again parents apply pressure getting the child to change their minds and say yes, is that consenual?What if it was a case of a man/womans partner wanting the other to share data? Saying no to this could cause a breakdown in the relationship, which could involve children. Is that consensual?

What about children being lead to think that telling insurance compaines and evrybody else, such as employers is normal because that is what they have been lead to belive. I know this is a phylisophical question, but it is something that I have felt needs to be considered by doctors as they are often the only people standing in the way of people gaing access to our records (although with the new natuional databse, something that is to be removed with the introduction of a national database (it is interesteing to note that children seem to have been excluded from the national databases that ministers and doctors cliam will save lives and saying no will cause harm to pateints).

Emergency Care Summary

This is something that has been adapted in Scotland, but it seems not all patients are aware of it or who will have access to the information. Just so that I can put my mind to rest, here are the facts about it.

1) All prescriptions are uploaded and although only accessible for 42 days, it is kept for good (nobody seems to want to say why they keep it). These prescriptions include Viagra, Ant-depressants and medications used in an abortion.

“) The record is not only available to doctors and nurses treating you. It is also available to the admin staff, such as the receptionist. This means that if you are not willing to tell the lass on reception you are on Viagra, you should not allow her to access the record.

3) When I contacted NHS Grampian about the dangers of not allowing the receptionist access to the record, they could not provide any evidence to support the claim that saying no would in anyway endanger your life.

4) When a GP practice contacted their patients about the upload, 19% of patients opted out of it. This is about 1,500 times the opt-out received from the letter drop that NHSScotland did. As far as I know, no other GP practice has bothered to write to their patients about it and GPs refuse to tell patients who are sitting in front of them, that their medical info is shared nationally even though it would only take seconds to do so. The NHS refuses to say why GPs refuse to actively inform patients about the data sharing even though evidence suggest patients are not aware of the sharing which means the GPs are in effect in breach of the GMC/NHS codes of practice.