BBC medical records story

[Ian G Batten]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Peter Gutmann wrote:

> Ross Anderson <Ross.Anderson@cl.cam.ac.uk> writes:
> 
> >>patient-administered records are a non-starter for technical and
> >>practical reasons.
> >
> >Bollocks.
> >
> >Pregnancy records are patient held, and have been for years. They are time-
> >critical and important, thus cannot be left to the bureaucrats. 

> That's a single special case in which the patient has considerable
> incentive (and an unchangeable, fixed schedule) to take care of
> things.  I can't see the average patient (eg the typical bloke who
> won't go and see a doctor until after his leg has fallen off from
> gangrene) doing this.  Peter.

A cynic would argue ``so what?''  We have an example of the practicality
of people holding their own records.  Therefore if people fail to take
similar care in other scenarioes, it's their problem.

More practically, in the UK people are expected to keep their own
financial records for self-assessment purposes.  Everyone paying
higher-rate tax has to fill in a self-assessment form, along with a
whole stack of other scenarios (large investment income, property
rental, CGT) which means a signficant portion of the population need to
maintain P45 and/or P60, P11D, bank income statements, etc.  The system
has its problems, but is not in meltdown, and of the many problems
commonly quoted, inability to lay hands on ones P60 is not one of them.

Some doctors want to believe patients cannot look after records, because
it aids their thesis that all patients are stupid.

ian