ChatterBank3 mins ago
Medical Records
This doesn't seem to have been discussed anywhere, but Hancock's latest wheeze is for an all-encompassing digital collation of medical records - and more
"England’s NHS is preparing to scrape the medical histories of 55m patients, including sensitive information on mental and sexual health, criminal records and abuse, into a database it will share with third parties."
(That should be readable without a subscription.) I wouldn't trust any computerised system in the public service - has any ever worked and not been hacked? Ask your local sub-postmaster.
Opting-out process here if anyone's interested
https:/
"England’s NHS is preparing to scrape the medical histories of 55m patients, including sensitive information on mental and sexual health, criminal records and abuse, into a database it will share with third parties."
(That should be readable without a subscription.) I wouldn't trust any computerised system in the public service - has any ever worked and not been hacked? Ask your local sub-postmaster.
Opting-out process here if anyone's interested
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jno. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Past experience shows that the notion of 'centralising' gets the average Tory politician slavering like Pavlov's dog, so this must be a seriously sexy idea for the government to get excited about.
However, history shows that like all major seriously unwieldy operations, the NHS is riddled with factions who all have their won individual uniquely operated fifedoms, with uniquely operated systems to run them.
The problem with 'centralising' is that it assumes that all these myriad labarynthine systems are compatable and can be streamlined into one huge faultless operating system that will provide everything to everyone.
That of course is a facile nonsense.
None of the NHS's systems are remotely compatible with each other, and attempts to make they talk to each other, much les combine, sends them into the microchip eqivalent of a nervous collapse where they fall over and cease to work at all for long periods.
If Mr Hancock seriously thinks this will work, he needs to chat to any of the poor bods who have to provide tech support to the NHS.
Any of them will do, they will all tell him that the notion is dooed to failure.
The person who will not say that, is the person bidding for the contract to oversee all this 'coming together' - he will say it's a snip, a doddle, and his company can do it for a mere (insert your own multi-million pound fee here) and it will be done in six months.
If I can see that, why can't the government?
I have friends in high-ranking jobs and other friends who provide tech support and they will laugh at this notion - so why doesn't Mr Hancock chat with them?
Because he has a vested interest in seeing himself as 'the man who sorted the NHS' and that sounds far more attractive than the reality -
Not in this lifetime chum!!
Oh well ...
However, history shows that like all major seriously unwieldy operations, the NHS is riddled with factions who all have their won individual uniquely operated fifedoms, with uniquely operated systems to run them.
The problem with 'centralising' is that it assumes that all these myriad labarynthine systems are compatable and can be streamlined into one huge faultless operating system that will provide everything to everyone.
That of course is a facile nonsense.
None of the NHS's systems are remotely compatible with each other, and attempts to make they talk to each other, much les combine, sends them into the microchip eqivalent of a nervous collapse where they fall over and cease to work at all for long periods.
If Mr Hancock seriously thinks this will work, he needs to chat to any of the poor bods who have to provide tech support to the NHS.
Any of them will do, they will all tell him that the notion is dooed to failure.
The person who will not say that, is the person bidding for the contract to oversee all this 'coming together' - he will say it's a snip, a doddle, and his company can do it for a mere (insert your own multi-million pound fee here) and it will be done in six months.
If I can see that, why can't the government?
I have friends in high-ranking jobs and other friends who provide tech support and they will laugh at this notion - so why doesn't Mr Hancock chat with them?
Because he has a vested interest in seeing himself as 'the man who sorted the NHS' and that sounds far more attractive than the reality -
Not in this lifetime chum!!
Oh well ...
operations like this should be on an opt-in, not opt-out basis.
You need to opt out in the next month, apparently. There's a link to the form you need in the third paragraph here
https:/
Print out, fill in and make sure your GP gets it - if you can get to him/her.
You need to opt out in the next month, apparently. There's a link to the form you need in the third paragraph here
https:/
Print out, fill in and make sure your GP gets it - if you can get to him/her.
// That of course is a facile nonsense. //
latest example. "download the NHS App and use it to access your Covid vaccination passport", says Mr Hancock.
except, many many GPs subscribe instead to "Airmid" rather than the NHS system, and the two systems are completely incompatible and won't share data.
another half-baked idea from our Health Secretary.
latest example. "download the NHS App and use it to access your Covid vaccination passport", says Mr Hancock.
except, many many GPs subscribe instead to "Airmid" rather than the NHS system, and the two systems are completely incompatible and won't share data.
another half-baked idea from our Health Secretary.
Hmmm, I despise this man but centralised medical records should be the norm. What needs to be changed are the fiefdoms and other numerous empires people have built which is what is draining the NHS.
//has any ever worked and not been hacked?// Well yes, you dont hear about them. Having said that the NHS systems are poor and practices are very outdated. I worked in IT in the Banking sector for years designing many systems. My wife works for the NHS and I can tell you in many areas they are 15+ years behind everyone else. For goodness sake some areas still use paper diaries for appointments!!
Now whilst I think what Hancock is proposing is the right diorect there are a couple of things, firstly because of the antiquated and differing systems this wont happen overnight. The Old Bill have been trying to replace the PNC for years now. My second and biggest beef is the 'selling data to third parties'. This cannot happen.
//has any ever worked and not been hacked?// Well yes, you dont hear about them. Having said that the NHS systems are poor and practices are very outdated. I worked in IT in the Banking sector for years designing many systems. My wife works for the NHS and I can tell you in many areas they are 15+ years behind everyone else. For goodness sake some areas still use paper diaries for appointments!!
Now whilst I think what Hancock is proposing is the right diorect there are a couple of things, firstly because of the antiquated and differing systems this wont happen overnight. The Old Bill have been trying to replace the PNC for years now. My second and biggest beef is the 'selling data to third parties'. This cannot happen.
// another half-baked idea from our Health Secretary.//
I suspect when all these bitty bitty softwares are bought ,the designers makes sure it wont handshake
and so there will be more lu-la in the kitty for when they want a handshake. I mean there have been some prettty appalling cacks up - notwith standing the post office
an SHO geek broke the code for sexuality in the inter-matching-scheme and mischeivously put it on the web
NHS computerisation - just didnt work did it?
I suspect when all these bitty bitty softwares are bought ,the designers makes sure it wont handshake
and so there will be more lu-la in the kitty for when they want a handshake. I mean there have been some prettty appalling cacks up - notwith standing the post office
an SHO geek broke the code for sexuality in the inter-matching-scheme and mischeivously put it on the web
NHS computerisation - just didnt work did it?
// //is replaced with unique codes which are produced by de-identification software...So reverse engineer it with software!//
or foo - ask Dom cummings
or another foo - send in a secret agent into the Elephant and Castle - yeah up its lu-lu!
or a third foo - ask mystic meg - - - all 3 simples !
anonymisation is called that when the key code is physically somewhere else - usual D P principles
so I wd be interested in -- how you would reverse engineer to remove anonymity ( "foo just do it" is not an adequate answer - neither is, "my hackers frenz wdnt like it if I did")
or foo - ask Dom cummings
or another foo - send in a secret agent into the Elephant and Castle - yeah up its lu-lu!
or a third foo - ask mystic meg - - - all 3 simples !
anonymisation is called that when the key code is physically somewhere else - usual D P principles
so I wd be interested in -- how you would reverse engineer to remove anonymity ( "foo just do it" is not an adequate answer - neither is, "my hackers frenz wdnt like it if I did")
ymb, they will argue that the "third parties" are vital in managing your health. Maybe this will mean US big pharma; maybe it will mean insurance companies. I do not trust any official claim that it will not happen. Hancock cannot stop a successor from doing it, and may do it himself. In my view, the only thing you can do is stop them collating your data in the first place.
In theory it's a good idea, as you say. But they cannot be trusted to do it properly. Has any public body ever shown competence in commissioning, managing or securing a digitised database?
In theory it's a good idea, as you say. But they cannot be trusted to do it properly. Has any public body ever shown competence in commissioning, managing or securing a digitised database?
