A new study to better understand what prevents people from using information technology to help them manage their health and care has found that few people have even heard of the three major NHS health information websites.
The study commissioned by Connecting for Health, looked at how social groups who may be excluded from electronic health information services used websites including health information website, NHS Choices, online health record, HealthSpace and health advice for those with learning disabilities, Easyhealth.

The report titled ‘Including Everyone in Electronic Health Information Services,’ states: “One of the most important findings of this study was that people had not heard of NHS Choices, HealthSpace and Easyhealth. This was even the case for people who had searched online for health information previously.”

The quantitative study by Raft, which interviewed 50 older people, people on low incomes and those with a learning disability from Bolton, Salford, Bury and Manchester, found that although few people had heard of NHS Choices and Easyhealth, participants were positive about the services when they were demonstrated to them.

However, some felt NHS Choices in particular was aimed at people that were newly diagnosed and could not help those who had had a condition for many years.

Others said that fear of health information, puts them off searching for health information “as a computer can’t reassure you if you’re frightened.”

In relation to HealthSpace, again, few participants had heard of the service including those in Bolton and Bury which are early adopters for the summary care record.

The reaction was mixed and found that it was “clear that most people would only wish to used certain functions of the website” such as the calendar function to help them remember hospitals appointments and the communicator.

Several added that they saw no advantage of seeing a record of medications or allergies when they already knew that they had them.

The report concludes that there is a high degree of trust in the information from the NHS websites which could usefully be used to promote the websites for effectively.

“Most people felt that leaflets and posters in GP surgeries and hospitals clinics would be suitable. Several people suggested the idea of TV advertising.”

The study also aimed to address those who had never accessed the internet, which amounts to 9.2 million people across England. It found that those who would consider learning wanted to do it as possible to home as possible in such as at home, community group they attended, GP surgery or hospital clinic.

Another finding was that although many people did not have access to computers or did not know how to use them, family members were able access the websites and provide the information.

The report recommends that “By promoting NHS websites to all computer uses, we can indirectly improve access to electronic health information for those people who do not use a computer.”

Marlene Winfield OBE, director for patient and public at CfH said: “This report is already helping CfH in the design and delivery of its products and services.

“It will we hope, contribute to the wider digital inclusion discussions taking place as a result of the current health whitepaper and the information strategy consultation that followed it.”

From: http://www.e-health-insider.com/major_nhs_public_websites_unheard_of

Patients will be able to view their medical records online, email their GP and compare doctors across Britain under plans for an “information revolution” in the NHS to be led by Martha Lane Fox, the internet entrepreneur.
Martha Lane Fox says that the most useful online services for consumers should be made available to NHS patients over the next few years.

Those requiring treatment for cancer will be able to study survival rates – and waiting times – for different medical teams and then opt to have treatment where they wish, under the plans to be announced today. Proposals are being drawn up to give patients online access to their medical records.

Miss Lane Fox says that the most useful online services for consumers should be made available to NHS patients over the next few years.

It is hoped this will help drive up hospital standards as patients choose not to use the services of poor doctors, who will then lose funding. Patients will also be asked to rate the service and treatment they receive from different hospitals and medics.

They will be able to choose which GP they register with and whether to be treated at an NHS hospital or private or charity-run institution, within certain cost limits.

Miss Lane Fox, the founder of Lastminute.com, says the data could prove invaluable.

The Department of Health is the only major Whitehall department which will not see its spending cut this week. However, Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, still has to push ahead with major reforms as the ageing population is causing a sharp rise in health-care costs.

Miss Lane Fox, the Government’s digital champion said: “A recent YouGov poll found that 40 per cent of people believe the NHS can learn from the service offered by supermarkets, banks and utility companies. I’ve always believed in the power of information and technology as an incredibly useful tool.

“There’s clearly an appetite for a new approach. The Department of Health is launching a consultation this week into how information and technology can help people take more control of their health and make the best choices for themselves and their families.”

The consultation will study how internal data could be offered to websites like TripAdvisor or Mumsnet, which could “empower patients and families”.

Mr Lansley said: “The first principle of the White Paper is that the NHS should ensure that for patients, ‘no decision about me, without me’ is the invariable practice. To realise this means patients must have more say and more choice.”

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/NHS-patients-to-see-medical-records-online

The Summary Care Record IT program  is to go ahead, but its content will be limited to core information with an opt out form will be included in patient information packs.

The Department of Health has published the results of two simultaneous reviews of the SCR, covering the content of the record and the information patients receive before their record is uploaded.

The reviews were set up by the coalition government this summer, following concerns about patients’ awareness of the SCR and the kind of information added to it. This had led to the suspension of further patient information programmes.

The review of the content of the record, led by NHS medical director Sir Bruce Keogh, concluded that the core record should only contain a patient’s demographic details, medications, allergies and adverse reactions, and that these should continue to be copied from the GP’s medical record.

The review group said the DH should only consider expanding the content of the record “when we have built trust in the system and when patients request that we should do so.”

Sir Bruce said: “In an advanced national health system, it is reasonable for citizens to expect that when they arrive in accident and emergency or require treatment out of hours, the clinicians treating them have access to enough basic medical information to prevent anyone making wrong or even dangerous decisions.”

The separate Patient Information and Preference Review group, led by national director of patient and public affairs Joan Saddler, concluded that an opt-out form should be included in the patient information packs, and that these should also be simplified.

It said services such as HealthSpace should also continue to provide access to SCRs.

Almost 30m patients have already received information about the SCR but the review concluded that there should be no requirement to send another letter to those patients.

However, it said but there should be awareness raising campaigns at local, regional and national levels to ensure patients realise that an SCR is being created for them unless they choose to opt out.

Health minister Simon Burns said he was pleased that a consensus had emerged about the importance of the SCR in supporting safe patient care, so long as the content of the record was limited to core information.

He added: “Coupled with improvements to communication with patients which reinforce their right to opt out, we believe this draws a line under the controversies that the SCR has generated up to now.

“We see this review as having taking a significant step towards the goal of patients owning their records and using them to share decision-making with healthcare professionals.”

A BMA spokesperson said: “We welcome the progress that has been made towards an emergency electronic record that supports urgent care, yet recognises many of the understandable concerns of patients and clinicians.

“Much will depend on the way the amended scheme is put into practice, and the BMA looks forward to continuing our work with government on its implementation. It is essential that patients have genuine control over who has access to their records, and when changes are made to them.”

The review groups concluded that patients should play a key role in deciding the evolution of the record and that new arrangements should be introduced to define responsibility for decisions about the introduction of any new content to the record.

They said the principle should be that any change to the scope of the record should be driven by citizens and patients with appropriate advice from professional bodies and in line with the IT capability.

Saddler said the availability of core information when patients need care was essential if patients were to be at the heart of care but it should also be easy for patients to opt-out.

She added:”Patients must be the ones who decide if any additional information should be included in their SCR, supported by appropriate professionals. This is the only way we will build trust in the SCR and its use.”

The SCR Content Review group said standards should be defined to support a patient’s wish to add information to their SCR such as end of life preferences, a care plan for patients with long term conditions or the inclusion of a patient’s significant medical history.

The review groups, which between them took evidence from almost 50 bodies, said it had heard strong opinions that the use of smartcards was not universal within GP practices which had implications for accurate updating of the SCR.

The reviews said use of smartcards was outside their remit but recommended that further options were investigated to mitigate the risk of practices not using smartcards.

The review group on Patient information and Preferences also recommended that the outer envelope that patients receive should have clear emphasis that the information contained in the envelope is about “Your health records, you need to make a choice.”

John Heyworth, president of the College of Emergency Medicine, said the college welcomed the decision to proceed with the SCR.

He added: “Clinicians working in emergency departments are currently often deprived of key background and patient information, particularly during the initial phase of time critical treatment and this may significantly compromise the quality and safety of care provided.

“Immediate access to such records will lead to better and safer care for our emergency patients.”

The review’s conclusions were backed by a range of bodies including the Patients’ Assocation, The Royal College of Nursing, Asthma UK and Sue Ryder Care.

From: http://www.e-health-insider.com/summary_care_record_given_go-ahead

The £12.7bn scheme to give every patient in England an electronic medical record will cease to be a centralised national programme, Simon Burns, the health minister, has announced.
Instead, the job will be devolved to the NHS, with hospitals allowed to introduce “smaller, more manageable change” using “a more plural, supplier base” than the two main contractors BT and CSC.

The moves will save another £700m on top of the £600m that the Labour government said it would cut from the cost of the programme, Mr Burns said in a written ministerial statement.

According to Christine Connelly, the health department’s director-general for informatics, the £1.3bn savings to reduce the programme’s overall estimated cost to £11.4bn will come from a variety of sources.

They include an anticipated – though still to be negotiated – £500m cut in the cost of CSC’s £3bn deal to supply systems to most of the north, east and west of the country; a £112m saving already booked from reducing the scope of BT’s deal in London; and £200m being taken out of the national programme’s own costs.

In addition, there will be an anticipated £500m reduction on an estimate that it would cost the NHS locally £3.5bn to install the systems.

The “core assumption” of the programme will now be one of “connecting all systems together rather than replacing all systems,” Mr Burns said, allowing NHS trusts to keep those that match modern standards while moving forward “in a way that best fits their own circumstances”.

The promise of a more devolved approach was welcomed by critics of the programme and the NHS Confederation. But both struggled to be clear about the implications.

Richard Bacon, a Conservative member of the Commons’ public accounts committee, said: “The big unanswered question is when it is all finished, what will we have got for all the money? There is still some £5bn in the programme to be spent, but it was meant to deliver something very special.”

Mr Burns said that in spite of “more plural” suppliers, the existing contracts with BT and CSC that have huge penalty break clauses “will be honoured”. Frances Blunden, the NHS Confederation’s IT specialist, said it was “a fair question” to ask “where will money come from for a wider choice of suppliers if the existing deals are to be honoured?”.

The statement does, however, represent something of a U-turn for the Conservatives, who had threatened ahead of the election to scrap all the programme’s central databases. The existing national infrastructure is to be kept, although a review of the national summary record is still underway, focusing on its contents and patient consent.

“The early indications [from the review] are that we are past the point of should we or shouldn’t we have one,” Ms Connelly said, “although that question will be asked”.

From: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/785e2f70-bc41-11df-8c02-00144feab49a.html

More than 3 million doctors have downloaded a 59p application – invented by Prof Peter Bentley, a researcher from University College London – which turns an Apple iPhone into a stethoscope.Last week, Bentley introduced a free version of the app, which is being downloaded by more than 500 users a day. Experts say the software, a major advance in medical technology, has saved lives and enabled doctors in remote areas to access specialist expertise.

“Everybody is very excited about the potential of the adoption of mobile phone technology into the medical workplace, and rightly so,” said Bentley, who initially developed the app “as a fun toy”.

“Smartphones are incredibly powerful devices packed full of sensors, cameras, high-quality microphones with amazing displays,” he said. “They are capable of saving lives, saving money and improving healthcare in a dramatic fashion – and we carry these massively powerful computers in our pockets.”

Bentley’s iStethoscope Pro application is not the only mobile phone programme lightening doctors’ bags and transforming their practices: there are nearly 6,000 applications related to health in the Apple App Store. The uptake has been rapid. In late 2009, two-thirds of doctors and 42% of the public were using smartphones – in effect inexpensive handheld computers – for personal and professional reasons. More than 80% of doctors said they expected to own a smartphone by 2012.

The trend looks likely to gain pace as younger doctors enter the workplace. Some medical schools issue students with smartphones. In America, Georgetown University, the University of Louisville and Ohio State University are among those requiring undergraduates to use one.

However, experts say they are being prevented from exploiting the technology’s opportunities. Bentley says that he is unable to launch a new range of applications because of out-of-date regulations.

“It’s much easier to develop technology than it is to get permission to use it,” he said. “I could create a mobile ultrasound scanner and an application to measure the oxygen content in blood, but the regulations stop me. We’re not allowed to turn the phone itself into a medical device, and what that precisely means is currently a grey area in terms of regulation. That’s the only reason we’re not seeing a flood of these devices yet.”

Professor Ian Wells, head of the scientific computing section in the department of medical physics at the Royal Surrey County hospital in Guildford, agrees that innovation is being hindered by regulations that are “still in their infancy”.

He said: “The approach of the regulators is not well worked out yet. There’s a wonderful new world out there but we need to find a way for regulators to protect patients and doctors, while not impeding innovation, research and development.”

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) – the government body with responsibility for standards of safety, quality and performance in healthcare – recently set up the Medical Device Technology Forum, a group of industry representatives, regulators, users and scientists, to help establish how to regulate novel technologies.

“This is such a complex area that we are currently looking at every application on a case-by-case basis,” said an MHRA spokesman. “We want to ensure that these new technologies are effectively regulated – thereby protecting health and avoiding unnecessary deterrents – while at the same time removing any unnecessary obstacles to manufacturers who wish to exploit new technologies for the benefit of patients.”

European regulators are also striving to bring their guidelines up to date. A group of regulators from Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Sweden and the UK was set up last December to develop guidance for software under the European Medical Device Regulations. They are expected to report at the end of the year.

• Star Analytical Services has developed an app that allows patients to cough into their phone, and tells them whether they have a cold, flu, pneumonia or other respiratory diseases.

• OsiriX lets doctors look at x-rays, ultrasounds, CT and MRI images on handheld devices or mobile phones with special software, enabling radiologists, for example, to diagnose acute appendicitis from remote locations.

• ERoentgen Radiology Dx helps radiologists identify the most appropriate radiology exam for a patient by searching a large database of signs, symptoms and diagnoses to help them make quick assessments.

• Instant ECG is just one app that analyses the most common ECG results. It distinguishes the difference in various myocardial ischemia or injury patterns. Using the iPhone’s interactive touch screen, the app offers “real-time” films to make rhythm analysis similar to the clinical setting.

• AirStrip OB, an iPhone app, gives obstetricians real-time remote access to foetal heart tracings, contraction patterns, nursing notes, and vital signs. Obstetricians can monitor different stages of labour even when they are not by a patient’s side.

From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/aug/30/iphone-replace-stethoscope

The government has confirmed it is planning to scrap the NHS Direct telephone service in England and replace it with an alternative service.
Nick Chapman, chief executive of NHS Direct: “The new helpline will be better and more cost effective than NHS Direct” A new 1-1-1 helpline is already being piloted in north-east England.

It was previously reported that the new service may replace NHS Direct, but now the Department of Health has confirmed it will definitely do so.

The move comes as the government curtails public spending, even though it has promised to protect the NHS.

The change will not affect existing NHS helpline services in Scotland and Wales.

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley announced the plan to scrap NHS Direct in England during a hospital visit.

NHS Direct currently employs more than 3,000 staff, 40% of whom are trained nurses. It is understood the ratio on the 1-1-1 helpline is “slightly less” in the pilot, but no figures are yet available for what will happen when the scheme is rolled out nationally.

Critics claim the change would undermine the quality of the service by reducing the number of qualified nurses answering calls, but chief executive of NHS Direct Nick Chapman told the BBC the new helpline would be better and more cost effective than NHS Direct.

In June GPs urged the government to get rid of NHS Direct, claiming it was not cost effective.

Roughly 14,000 people a day call NHS Direct for medical advice, with the service costing £123m a year to run.

Dr Peter Carter, chief executive and general secretary of The Royal College of Nursing , said reducing the number of specialist nurses who worked on the new helpline was “short-sighted.”

He said: “We urge the government to consult fully and look at all the evidence before enacting changes which could leave people without expert advice from trained nurses.”

From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nhs-direct-to-be-scrapped

NHS hospitals have quietly created banks of DNA from blood taken from millions of newborn babies without the proper consent of their parents.Freedom of information (FOI) requests to hospitals around Britain have established that the blood samples, taken in heel-prick tests to screen for serious conditions, have been privately stored by parts of the NHS since 1984.

According to guidance obtained by The Sunday Times, the DNA can be looked at by police, coroners and some medical researchers. They are able to identify named individuals.

This weekend Andrew Lansley, the health secretary, was under pressure to order an inquiry into why the NHS appeared to have acted without securing proper consent from parents.

Mothers of newborns are given a leaflet that academic experts say fails to make clear the distinction between consent for vital clinical tests to safeguard a baby’s health and for the use of the baby’s DNA in medical research and police inquiries.

Dr Helen Wallace, director of GeneWatch, a pressure group, said: “Giving mothers a leaflet does not amount to informed consent. No one who has just given birth is in a state to understand the full implications of how their baby’s genome might be used in future.”

The standard leaflet simply explains that the stored blood samples can be used “for research to help improve the health of babies and their families in the UK”.

Up to 4m samples are being held at four of the 16 centres licensed to hold newborns’ bloodspots in the UK, according to the FOI responses. More than 700,000 babies are screened each year.

The police and coroners can apply for access to the infant blood samples, which contain individual DNA, to identify people involved in crimes.

Private medical companies and researchers working for the NHS are also able to access the samples, although most of the research is anonymous and done by the NHS after approval by an ethics committee. The bloodspots have been used for genetic research and mass screening for diseases such as HIV in babies’ mothers.

The UK Newborn Screening Programme Centre, which oversees the use of samples, says that some of the bloodspots can be linked to other information, such as hospital admission records, which identifies the individual.

Government guidance says the bloodspots should be kept for at least five years, but hospitals vary widely in their practices.

Central Manchester University Hospitals Trust has 1m samples in storage dating from 1984. About 250,000 further samples are stored in the hospital’s laboratory. It plans to store them indefinitely.

Cambridge University Hospitals Trust retains samples for 18 years. It stores 400,000 samples at Endex archives in Ipswich, with a further 62,800 samples kept in hospital labs.

Great Ormond Street hospital in London began storing samples in 1990 and preserves them for at least 20 years. It screens and stores the samples of about 120,000 babies a year.

It confirmed that it had occasionally handed samples to coroners but not to the police.

Alder Hey children’s hospital in Liverpool, which was at the centre of a scandal over the retention of children’s organs, has 145,000 samples in storage. It receives about 29,000 samples per year. It destroys all samples after five years.

Dr Jane Kaye, director of the centre for health, law and emerging technologies at Oxford University, said: “It is very difficult to get samples like this to do public health screening. It is an enormous resource. But the problem is that this needs to be done properly and with proper consent. At the moment people are not being asked to sign a consent form or make a distinction between what is for their own child’s health and the fact that this may be used for other purposes.”

The samples are taken from babies, aged 5-8 days, to test for conditions such as sickle cell disorders, cystic fibrosis and phenylketonuria.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, the pressure group, said that hospitals might face legal claims.

“As someone who gave consent for my own baby to be tested, I’m horrified that anyone would breach my trust, keep my child’s sample for years on end and use it for all sorts of extraneous purposes.

“If they think that thrusting a leaflet in an exhausted new mother’s hand creates informed consent, they can look forward to a flurry of claims under article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

“Liberty is writing to the new health secretary to ask for an urgent investigation.”

From: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article7134061.ece

The NHS’s Connecting for Health CfH, NPfIT continues to push forward its plan to nationalise and centralise all medical records in England.

This despite a misleading announcement from the Department of Health that uploads to the Summary Care Record (SCR) aka Snoopers Charter are ‘on hold’.

In just the last few days, the medical press has reported that:

• NHS East Riding of Yorkshire began sending out notification letters to patients the day before election day;

• GP practices in Hastings, East Sussex have uploaded records over the past 2-3 weeks, despite patients complaining they hadn’t received a notification letter;

• At least 9 other Primary Care Trusts are working towards upload, and practice managers – not GPs – may already have given the go-ahead for upload at some practices in South West Essex.

Clearly, whatever deal was agreed between the British Medical Association and the NHS, there is no effective barrier to upload. And CfH is desperate to create a ‘critical mass’ of records, which it thinks will make the system impossible to scrap.

Health Direct warns that you need to act quickly.

30 million ‘Patient Information Packs’ were sent out in the run-up to the general election. No-one knows how many failed to reach their intended target. Both parties that now form the new government pledged to scrap the Care Records system but, every day that uploads continue, people’s medical confidentiality is being put at risk.

Please take a few minutes now or today to write to your new MP, urging him or her to call for an immediate halt to Summary Care Record uploads. POWER2010 has very kindly built an online letter-writing tool to help
you do this: http://www.power2010.org.uk/Halt

On the subject of the Nanny State’s Snoopers Charters- Home Information Packs (HIPs) were announced in the Queen’s Speech in November 2003, so were plans for a national ID scheme. The introduction of HIPs was subject to delays and plans were scaled back – just like the ID scheme.

In 2009 HIPS were finally issued and so were ID cards. The scrapping of HIPs was a manifesto pledge by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, so was scrapping ID cards.

Yesterday Eric Pickles MP, the new Communities Secretary announced that “HIPs are history” and “laid an Order suspending HIPs with immediate effect” (pending primary legislation for a permanent abolition).

Meanwhile ID cards are still being issued and the UK Identity and Passport website states: “Until Parliament agrees otherwise, identity cards remain valid and as such can still be used as an identity document and for travel within Europe.” Alas we still await a Pickles style announcement from the Home Office.  See http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/1591777

The NHS has been accused of scaring patients into agreeing to have their personal information included on the controversial NPfIT electronic records database.

The agency charged with rolling out the new system is warning of “adverse consequences” if people choose to opt out of the computerised network, which has been criticised as chaotic by doctors.

It is also claiming that the NHS currently has “significant problems” with lost records.

A document posted on the website of NHS Connecting for Health lists several dangers to patients if they continue to have their medical information stored on paper files.

It states: “Health-care staff treating you may not be aware of your current medications in order to treat you safely and effectively.

“Health-care staff treating you may not be made aware of current conditions and/or diagnoses leading to a delay or missed opportunity for correct treatment.

“Health-care staff may not be aware of any allergies/adverse reactions to medications and may prescribe or administer a drug/treatment with adverse consequences.”

While acknowledging confidentiality risks over the digital database, the document continues: “It is … misleading to suggest that not having such a record is risk free.”

The computerised record system, also known as the care summary record, is intended to make it easier for doctors and nurses to get access patients’ medical histories.

But the programme has been beset by technical problems and criticisms. Last month the labour Government halted the national roll-out after it emerged that data could have been logged on the system without patients’ knowledge.

Information about more than 1.25 million patients have already gone on to the database, which eventually could hold up to 50 million records.

The Big Brother Watch lobby group accused Connecting for Health of overstating the risk to patients if they opt out of the system, after a Department of Health spokesman said the problem of lost paper records was not “significant” as the agency claimed.

Dylan Sharpe, the Big Brother Watch campaign director, told the Daily Mail: “If you value your privacy ignore these false and misleading warnings and opt out.”

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/NHS-scaring-patients-into-accepting-electronic-records-database

Health Direct urges you to opt out of labour’s snoopers charter NOW- WHILST YOU STILL CAN!

The NHS is sending millions of patient records and confidential medical notes to India for processing — despite a pledge by Labour that personal information would not be sent overseas.
It is the first time that databases of names, addresses and NHS numbers of patients have been sent abroad, along with private information about medical appointments.

NHS managers, under pressure to cut costs, are implementing the changes despite warnings about poor security in some offshore centres.

The Sunday Times has identified seven primary care trusts in northeast London, serving more than 1.5m people, that have begun to send patient details overseas. The databases are administered by about 200 workers in Pune, western India.

Although companies handling the records in India said security was “paramount”, there is a risk of patients being identified if the NHS numbers are matched with anonymised clinical notes carrying NHS numbers, already being sent to India by more than 30 trusts.

Typically, a set of clinical notes will be based on a consultant’s findings during a session with a patient, which he will read into a voice recorder during or after the appointment.

The recording is then transferred to a computer and sent to India, where it is transcribed. One source involved in processing the information said patient names can crop up during the appointment and may then inadvertently be included with the clinical data.

Workers in India are also producing letters for patients with appointments for cervical smear tests and breast screenings.

Pilot schemes for NHS offshore transcription services began more than four years ago and have rapidly expanded. The Royal Free hospital in London, the Derby hospitals trust and the Newham University hospital trust are among those sending clinical notes overseas.

Labour ministers have been anxious to allay concerns about the confidentiality of patient information since the launch of a £12 billion scheme to computerise health records.

In January 2007 Caroline Flint, then health minister, told parliament the project would “expressly preclude the transfer of patient information outside the United Kingdom”.

Trusts, however, believe they may send patient information outside the UK if it does not come under the electronic records project.

John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP for Birmingham Yardley and an expert on IT projects, said: “Given the government’s track record of losing data in this country, it is worrying that data are being sent overseas. Every transfer of information adds to the risk of it being lost.”

The possible risks of transferring patient data overseas were exposed last year when undercover reporters from ITV1’s Tonight programme were able to buy health records from a private hospital in London, processed in India. The sellers claimed to have access to thousands of UK medical records.

The transfer of primary care trust records is being handled by NHS Shared Business Services, a joint venture between the Department of Health and the IT company Steria.

From: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article7086816.ece

Health Direct urges you to opt out of labour’s snoopers charter- whilst you still can!