yes more personal intrusion and theft by the profiteers and the fear people who own the law. they want to own you.

You walk in.

You touch your finger to the screen.

You read your medical records.

Er -- that's it.

[Nurse - can we have a straitjacket for this patient?]

>>You touch your finger to the screen. You read your medical records.


so presumably there's a computer record of which finger print matches which record. they'd be filed and saved, right? well we all know just how confidential confidential information is, right?

>>[Nurse - can we have a straitjacket for this patient?]

next

First and foremost, let me put to one side, for a while,

1. The Data Protection Act,
2. The direction given by the Department of Health
3. Recommendations of the General Medical Council
4. The Disability Discrimination Act


yep Doc' technology will allow you to
Walk in.
You touch your finger to the screen.
You read your medical records.
And yes
Er -- that's it. The opportunity to inspect your records whilst you stay within the practice

Whereas the current situation allows patients a copy of their records to keep and inspect at length in the comfort of their own homes where they are free to discuss them in privacy should they wish.

Now, back to all that legislation……

Well the first 3 specify the need to apply for a copy of your records using either an actual or electronic signature, are fingerprints electronic signatures? No

And the DDA, well hardly an accessible provision is it, what do you suggest Doc', a Stephen Hawkins type voice reading your records to you and the whole surgery? Emmm….

Now what do you think is the cost of all this new technology, Compared to someone pushing your notes through the photocopier?

The hardware & Software
The conversion of all those notes from paper to electronic? All that doctors handwriting!
The management of the system.

So in summary,
· There is extensive cost both set up and on costs.
· That dosh would be better used providing healthcare.
· There is no improvement to service.
· The system discriminates against disabled people and those that do not read English or understand Hawkineese.

Oh and I wonder
· Why would anyone want all a persons personal details in one place?

[Nurse – Sod the pointless I.T. lets make the waiting room comfortable!]

1. The NHS is going over to electronic records as it is;

2 "Why would anyone want all a persons personal details in one place?" You know, this might be moderately useful to the doctor who sees you? "The specialist's report? Nah, that's in Aberdeen."

3. "The system discriminates against disabled people and those that do not read English or understand Hawkineese." Ah, right. I mean, those people who don't read English will find all those photocopies really, really useful. And don't disabled people have fingers?

4. "Now what do you think is the cost of all this new technology, Compared to someone pushing your notes through the photocopier?" You save on labour costs. And you don't kill trees.

1. The NHS is going over to electronic records as it is;
But a fingerprint does not remove the need for a signature.

2 "Why would anyone want all a persons personal details in one place?"

Copies of your fingerprints, your dna (remember that blood test?) details of that slight bought of whatever You had all lumped together .

3. "The system discriminates against disabled people and those that do not read English or understand Hawkineese."

Ah, right. I mean, those people who don't read English will find all those photocopies really, really useful.

well maybe as useful as seeing it on a monitor? and they can take them home to discuss in private?

And don't disabled people have fingers? well you tell me? it either does or it does not discriminate - I agree this system does.

4. "Now what do you think is the cost of all this new technology, Compared to someone pushing your notes through the photocopier?" You save on labour costs. And you don't kill trees.

I can't believe that there are some people who still believe that IT reduces the amount of paper used - lets see your stats!!! what are PC's made from? perhaps they are now made from some eco friendly material? or that IT has reduces labour costs - maybe in banking and insurance! what about set up and revenue costs.


I THINK THAT THE OVERWHELMING CRITICISM IS THAT IT WILL NOT REMOVE THE NEED FOR A SIGNATURE NOR DO NOTHING TO IMPROVE THE DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE

1. My own doctor doesn't make paper notes any more - he types them direct onto a PC.

2. Your surgery will have your fingerprints. Well, considering what else they're going to have, I wd think a fingerprint is the least of yr worries.

3. I strill don't see why disabled people are discriminated against. The blind, maybe, but that applies to paper records. Those without fingers - in which case, they're going to have difficulty turning the pages.

4. If you do want to take a copy home, ever heard of print outs?

5. Electronic records must more useful if you move. Paper ecords wd have to be posted, electronic ones do not.

6. Don't complain about PCs if you want your notes put thru a photocopier.

So let me recap?

1. No one has identified a benefit that the system will deliver. We are agreed that there is a cost.
2. There is still a need to provide a signature.
3. Can we agree that more than any other, your medical records tend to contain whole life stories, where you lived any ailments, family history? Education tends not to go much further than early 20’ for lots of people and 16 for most. Tax & NI only start at 16.
4. The fact that your medical records will have your fingerprints and possibly your DNA does not cause concern?
5. You don’t see why disabled people are discriminated against, except for the visually impaired that is!!!
6. Electronic records can move with you – nope they cannot be transferred electronically unless you have consent from the local Primary Care trust (ask your gp how they get blood test results and where the letter from the hospital is kept!), who won’t give consent cause they then become liable should it all go pear shaped!

Anyway, the point was not about storing but the method of ID used, the fact that this will not remove the need to provide a signature (so it actually lengthens the process) and hence the fact that apart from it looking sharp it does nothing to benefit the patient and has costs attached.