BBC medical records story

[Peter Fairbrother]

> Ben Clifford wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> 
>> This idea is a complete
>> non-starter, as several organisations who have tried it in the past have
>> already discovered.
> 
> The idea of the NHS bureacracy looking after my medical records is, IMO, a
> "complete non-starter". But that is how they are looked after.

Im ny experience they aren't. My doctor looks after my records (and
occasionally loses bits of them) - however, the NHS bureacracy has
consistently lost all my earlier records, every single one.

I've never managed to get a set of records transferred when I have changed
doctors - some doctors don't even try. Last time the nurse spent half an
hour with me filling in a medical history questionnaire.

As for X-rays etc. in hospitals... I guess they recover the silver as soon
as they think no-one will notice. They don't seem to care much about
long-term storage after you're no longer a patient.

Records relating to a continuing illness/course of treatment can be
important, but their storage is supervised by the attanding doctor/unit.
When he changes I suspect most competent new doctors would re-diagnose,
unless they knew the first one.

I don't know that general medical records are of that much use - perhaps
they could tell if I'd had mumps as a child, but those ones are lost, and I
doubt many doctors would trust them anyway if it was a matter of life and
death. 

Maybe the NHS bureacracy is the right place for them! However, I am not a
Doctor.

-- Peter Fairbrother