6 Dorset Practices have been added to the SCR/SPINE Pilot see here. If you are in Dorset support the campaign and opt out now.
A big thank you for all your generous donations. Donations are spent on telephone costs, printing, postage, email hosting etc. Even when the web site is quiet we are extremely busy beavering away in the background. Apart for campaigning we also provide an advice/information service for patients on all aspects of medical confidentiality and refer onto other organisations, as appropriate. We average 80-120 calls a day without any major publicity that is without the emails. We are also a resource for the media and medical profession and provide them we specialised information on a regular basis. As per Ross’ post yesterday about the Sunday Telegraph we are currently averaging 2 calls a minutes! If donations run out we fund The Big Opt Out ourselves, we receive no funding from outside sources. We are also constantly researching the whole area of medical confidentiality. The Big Opt Out was set up for two prime reasons one to campaign against the NHS Care Records and two to provide an advice/information service as no other voluntary organisation specialises in the medical confidentiality. The Big Opt Out is a full-time job and labour of love, we all give up our time freely to run The Big Opt Out.
Once again many thanks for your donations.
We’ve been getting two calls a minute following major coverage in the Telegraph on Sunday. Dr James le Fanu’s column was entitled “If we starve it of information, we could still kill off the Government’s ‘stealth’ database.” Unfortunately the puiece has not appeared online, so I will summarise it here.
He starts by recounting how essential trust is to GPs, and how easy it is to damage (even by rumour). He goes on to welcome the news that the scheme will be six years late, mentions that he does not recall getting any letter from the Department offering him an opt-out of “this profoundly misconceived scheme”, and points out that the latters are not addressed personally but to “the occupier”. He argues that the real agenda is to abolish the traditional GP surgery in favour of polyclinics, and calls on his readers to “scupper the scheme in its entirety” by registering their refusal to have their records uploaded.
Connecting for health has organised a review of the SCR early adopter sites. It’s rather disappointing.
The evaluators’ terms of reference were broad enough for them to have looked at any issue, and they were aware that organisations from the BMA through the gang of 22 to TBOO had asked both hard engineering questions (“will it work?”) and hard legal questions (“is it lawful?). Yet they shrank from considering these questions and restricted themselves to interviewing a few hundred GPs, patients and CfH staff to find out what they thought of it.
In effect, they did not ask the real question (“are we building the right system?”) but the politicians’ question (are we selling it right?”)
This “ethnographic” study was perhaps the easiest ride that CfH could have been given, yet even so the evaluators found lots to moan about.
Next time, no doubt, CfH will have its systems evaluated by a bunch of theologians …