One quarter of patients favour records opt-out

Tags: consent Government GP PCTs SCR South Summary Care Record

10 Sep 2007

Two-thirds of patients believe the government’s consent plans for the Summary Care Record (SCR) are acceptable but one in four would opt out, according to a survey of more than 2600 patients.

The poll, conducted by market research company Opinion Health for GP newspaper Pulse, asked 2,644 patients across the north, Midlands and south of England about their knowledge of and views on the SCR.

The survey found that 66% felt it was an acceptable plan for the government to write to every person in England about its plans for electronic records and assume those who do not object are happy for their records to be uploaded.

However the survey also found that 25% would not wish their records to be uploaded and a further 18% did not know whether they would agree to their summary record being uploaded to the spine. The percentage of patients predicting they would opt out is much higher than the number, less than half a percent, who have actually opted out so far in Bolton, the first early adopter area.

Researchers also found that more than half those questioned, 57%, were concerned that sharing of records could lead to a breach of their confidentiality.

Less than half of those who took part in the survey, 42%, were aware of the government’s plans to create an SCR for every patient in England.

GP practices in four primary care trusts (PCTs), Bolton, Bury, Dorset and South Birmingham, are currently taking part in the early adopter programme for the SCR with a further two PCTs due to join later this year.

Reader's Comments

how was the poll worded?

11 Sep 07 13:09

I would love to know how these questions were phrased, and which section of society was targetted. It is also worth pointing out that my GP never once mentioned the summary record plans to me, even though he knew I worked for a primary healthcare system supplier.

Perhaps if the public had it explained to them, with details on how information will be restricted to those who need it (instead of being shouted across the reception area by receptionists gossiping about whichever patient just left), they will be more reassured about the security. How many members of the public were given the information to allow them to distinguish between spine security issues and those of the systems in the care setting? Good examples being my previous employer not changing their admin password on a regular basis (i.e. years), or carers lending each other's login cards not caring about the different levels of access afforded.

How many had it explained to them that such a database, with DNA information if we touch upon one of the other scare tactics being employed against such a database, might allow faster identification of donors? There are many benefit here but, as usual the information being supplied to the public is being filtered by both sides.

On the other hand, with the general apathy displayed by the nation when it comes to making sure they're getting the best value for money on things like credit cards and insurance, something like the SCR will be lucky to get a grunt, let alone the effort to opt out - perhaps if us supporters of the SCR keep quiet and let the argument die, laziness will win the day for us.

survey

11 Sep 07 19:09

The detail of the questions are on the Pulse website. Cetainly the research did not give any factual information before asking for an opinion. The whole point of the real thing in the early adopter communities is that people are given information and access to mkore information before they exercise an informed choice. There is opportunity to ask with no pressure across a minimum 16 week period all their questions and choose amongst their various participation options. None of the detail described in the information available to the early adopter communities was available to the people surveyed Gillian Braunold Clinical Director Summary Care Record & HealthSpace Programme

Wrong question.

12 Sep 07 08:09

Security will be impossible to enforce in such a big and sprawling organization which depends on low paid and often temporary labour to keep it running. With over a million people working for the NHS, do you really think that they will be able to enforce a proper security? A better survey might result if they asked your doctor if they would allow their medical records to be on the spine. As a GP, I know that I will not be allowing mine to be available.

human risk factors, not system

12 Sep 07 11:09

Exactly, it's not the systems that are the issue, it's the staff and local policies. Enforce proper security, and make sure everyone knows both the professional and personal consequences of breaking the rules. Currently NHS staff leave sessions open on unlocked PCs, lose unencrypted memory sticks with eight hours' worth of consultation notes, or send unencrypted data out in the post (e.g. system back up tapes to system suppliers for data migration or validation services). I went to visit an acute hospital to discuss some issues with a system implementation, without being given a visitor's pass, and not once was I challenged as I passed through the areas patients or visitors wouldn't generally be seen.

Generally. the current situation is far worse than the proposed SCR, with data floating all over the place, no audit trails, and very little hope of disaster recovery. How many histories were lost in GP surgeries damaged during the summer floods, or when servers are stolen from poorly secured premises? Why aren't people bringing these issues up in the national press or the many conferences? There are many angles to this story that are not being mentioned, yet scare tactics are being used to sensationalise something which is more secure than your financial details, or other electronic information thrown around the virtual world.

As a GP, why would you be against the sections of your medical history pertinent to essential care being available on a secure national system to which only your peers had audited access as required? On what experience of the security architecture are you basing your stance? (I ask this as a genuine question, as I really do want to understand why people are fighting so hard against something which could help save lives)