Results and referrals herald the next stage of the Dorset Care Record
- 27 February 2019
Radiology and pathology results along with referrals are to be added to the Dorset Care Record (DCR).
Radiology results from Dorset County Hospital (DCHFT), Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals (RBCH) and Poole Hospital (PHFT), as well as pathology reports and referrals from Dorset County Hospital are now included on the shared record, which is part of the Wessex Local Health and Care Record Exemplar (LHCRE), also known as the Wessex Care Record.
This provides details on appointments, visits and hospital stays, helping GPs, community health and social care professionals who will be able to see records updated in real time.
The aim is to ultimately provide more joined up healthcare for those living in Dorset, with these particular additions being beneficial for senior clinicians, GPs, nurses and pharmacists.
Peter Gill, Director of informatics at Royal Bournemouth Hospital and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and DCR senior responsible owner, said: “This is a significant milestone for the Dorset Care Record and will ensure that people will receive coordinated and safer care as well as enabling health and social care professionals to better understand the needs of patients across the county.”
The Dorset Care Record already holds demographic data from the county’s three acute hospitals, including name, date of birth, address, next of kin, NHS number and ethnicity.
It also contains GP records covering diagnosis, events, examinations, investigations, medication and allergies, procedures and risks.
In July 2018, information on inpatient, outpatient and admissions from Dorset County Hospital was also added to the record.
Work has also begun on developing the Dorset Care Record Citizen Portal, which will in time enable people to check their own records.
Two pilot groups, expectant mothers and certain cancer patients, have been chosen for the pilot of the Citizen Portal and are being developed in partnership with provider Orion Health.
8 Comments
Boy oh boy…..
I would much rather that any Clinician treating me has the ability to view my full medical record so they can make an informed decision on the best course of treatment. And as long as there is an opt-out for those whom do not want their records to be shared then I do not see a problem.
It is time you woke up and did see the problem. All opt-outs offered by the NHS are a total sham. They never have been, never have been intended to be, and never will be respected. All opt-outs are (illegally) ignored, (illegally) overruled, or (illegally) circumvented by using so called “anonymised” data, which are neither anonymous nor unidentifiable and, under the GDPR, are therefore personal data. I suggest that it is a mistake to believe anything the NHS tells you if it relates to harvesting patient data.
Just one example (there are dozens and dozens to choose from): patients can supposedly opt-out of secondary use of their personal data, but under the proposed new system for organ donation, they are required to register their choice whether to donate or not, and if they fail to do so it will be presumed that they wish to donate their organs. Therefore everyone will have their personal data on the organ donor register. This is secondary use of personal data, from which nobody can opt out. Anyone who fails to register will be presumed to be willing to donate, and their next of kin will be harassed at the time of their death to confirm their choice. There is no opt-out from secondary use of persona data for the purpose of maintaining the organ donor register. This has nothing to do with the direct care of those who do not choose to donate.
I have no problem whatsoever with CLINICIANS viewing CLINICAL notes to help them provide a good CLINICAL solution to a problem. I do with access for non-clinical uses. Or perhaps you think Clinicians should just have access to their silo data?
I do think that the DHSC/NHS England are absolutely determined to gain full control of all health data, in the form of comprehensive, longitudinal patient records across all health and care settings, since this is the form of health data that has both the highest market value and the greatest potential for controlling the data subjects. I also think that, having once run into resistance when they tried to just march straight in and take the data without consent, they are now trying to get what they want by more devious means, by using direct care as a pretext for creating the records and the systems that will deliver everything they want. People will go along with this, believing that their LHCR is for clinicians, then they will find that it has somehow become part of a national resource available to half the world, his wife and his dog – and it is being sold to a global market. I really don’t think there is any doubt about this, so silos may actually be a better option. Frankly, I am perfectly capable of ensuring my doctors have the information they need. The real problem is that they often don’t have time to look at it, however it is presented.
What would be useful, for both professionals and Patients would be a button labelled “information held elsewhere”. When selected this would interrogate other amalgamated care records around the country. We can but dream…..
Heaven forbid! That is, however, obviously part of the hidden agenda – surely you can see that? The watchword is “stealth”. When the majority appear to be innocently unaware, giving the perpetrators a mandate to coerce the rest, you will get your “button” soon enough, but be careful what you wish for.
Not the topic of this article, but what would be wrong with the use of longitudinal data.
Can you elaborate on your controlling the data subjects comment?
I certainly could elaborate, though it is difficult in the space of a paragraph or two. In principle nothing wrong with the use of longitudinal data, if relevant and if used by physicians I have chosen, who have my trust. That said, a great deal of the longitudinal data is utter rubbish and some of it actually misleading (even malicious) and potentially harmful. This can be countered if the patient is there, speaking for themselves. In the hands of data analysts it is a best useless and at worst dangerous. There is also the issue of privacy. Even on the minor scale of the LHCR, I want to control who sees which of my records for what purpose. I definitely do not want my entire medical history on the global market, and I particularly do not want it in the hands of our current criminally insane government.
Control: A major reason the NHS want comprehensive data on everyone is their population health management agenda. This goes beyond risk stratification and “case finding” and unsolicited interventions. One can already see that the direction of travel is towards ever increasing control of how patients are herded through the healthcare system, ever increasing automation (protocols followed by robotic under qualified personnel) and removal of choice as to where we go and whom we can consult and what options we have. It might be cost effective, which is where the data analytics comes in (though personally I doubt even that supposed benefit). I happen to believe that I can have far more effective healthcare if I do the steering, in consultation with the right people. Mass herding is stupid. It fails to use the most valuable resource that the NHS has – the intelligent collaboration between patients and the right experts. You don’t even save money by making virtually all healthcare ineffective. Best I can do in the available space.
Comments are closed.