Expert welcomes UK’s digital health recommendations New recommendations made to the UK government over how to encourage greater use of technology in the NHS in England can help health bodies meet challenging budget constraints and deliver more convenience for patients, an expert has claimed. Expert in digital health Matthew Godfrey-Faussett of Pinsent Masons, the law firm …
what could possibly go wrong?
Your question generates a near infinite number of answers, with an infinite number of permutations (pedants: feel free to wade in). I suggest you reverse the question and ask "what, realistically speaking, might go right?"
Answers on the back of a postage stamp...
"... to make sure that users have confidence in the security of the networks that are being offered"
Minister: "Yes, we can confidently assure the public that we have been given the best advice on how to ensure that our systems are not hacked and that patients' data is secure. (Sotto voce) And we've ignored all of it because that sort of thing is expensive and by the time it all goes tits-up, someone else will be in this job and some poor sap three levels down will be blamed and any fines levied will just transfer money from one balance sheet to another..."
She also called on the government to encourage at least 10 per cent of GP patients to use digital services to book doctor appointments, request repeat prescriptions and access their medical records by 2017.
My surgery offers all of these services. But:
1) Appointments can only be made up to 7 days ahead, and then only for doctors, not any other clinics. And my doctor never has any appointments free earlier than 5 days ahead. So in practice you can't do it online and have to phone;
2) Repeat prescriptions actually work! As long as it's not something you only need every 3 months or so, in which case their system purges the prescription. And it randomly rejects prescriptions anyway about one time in five;
3) The only medical records available are current repeat prescriptions and a list of any ongoing investigations. No detail whatsoever.
What's surprising is that anyone bothers, really.
"This will be a powerful and impactful step to improve people’s take up of digital health and new technologies," Lane Fox said. "It could open the doors to new digital tools and technologies and it could transform health and social care services. In addition, it would mean the NHS taking a wider leadership role in the national effort to eradicate digital exclusion."
A nice piece of "management bollocks" in the run - up to Christmas. Bullshit baffles brains, etc.
Apart from anything else I want the NHS to concentrate on healthcare, not "taking a wider leadership role in the national effort to eradicate digital exclusion."
The latter makes about as much sense as taking medical advice from a paperclip. (Which gives a clue to the age of my PC!)
All sorts of things wrong about this (see post above about age of patients, for example) but the biggest thing that springs out at me is this: the Government isn't going to make sure that at least 90% of the population has a computer, an Internet connection, and comprehensive training in the use of same.
No, they are putting the task of getting 90% of patients onto electronic systems onto the primary care givers. So not MLF and co. but the poor bloody GP practices.
The message seems clear; task someone else with the job, blame them if it fails, claim credit if it works.
Speaking as someone who is working as a patient volunteer with the local Practice Manager to trial bits of new software, and also as someone who is pushing them to make more use of their web site the picture is sadly clear. An estimated 90% of patients just don't care about Internet access to the local GP.
Most just want an appointment NOW and what do you mean all your slots are booked for today? So the doctors have to keep some slots free for genuine urgent cases, and they have to triage these to filter out the non-urgent cases. I doubt that there is an expert system available to GPs to perform this triage (apart from the current meatware).
So the majority of patients (who may see the GP once a year if that) have no interest or incentive to go through the hassle of registering for online access and storing the ID and password somewhere safe in case they need it in a year or so. When they want access they want it fast so they phone up.
IMHO the major gainers from electronic systems will be those with a chronic complaint who are regular users of the GP and/or specialist nursing staff. As a T2 Diabetic I like the ability to browse back through my medical records, especially the blood test results, to remind myself how good/bad my control has been over a period of years. Repeat prescriptions (which do work on our surgery system) are also good as is the ability to schedule regular check ups.
One of the "opportunities" with GP computer systems is that each practice can choose an accredited supplier so not all practices use the same software so features and facilities will vary depending on where you are.
TL;DR usual pointless Government bullshit.
Absolutely.
Just think how many of us ( in the sense of ordinary folk not just tecchies) do password resets because they need a p/w they haven't needed for a few months.
For the people who just need an appointment on a rare occasion all this elaborate high tech stuff is a total pointless waste.
Where it would be good is for those who have chronic low level health problems, needing routine monitoring appointments or repeated prescriptions.
For the rest the good old direct phone call is the most efficient system ever.
Free WiFi in the health centre? I guess if it doesn't divert funds from core NHS services it can't do any harm and might do some good. But who pays for the bandwidth/hardware/tech support?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
