Health check: Shared NHS records mean better medical research
The test of the system will be whether it maintains confidentiality, as promised
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.We are accustomed to the idea that what goes on between doctor and patient in the consulting room must remain confidential. It is a fundamental principle of good medical care. What is less widely accepted is that, in order to provide good, timely care, information must be shared, albeit while confidentiality is still respected. It is an important way of spotting what is going wrong – and right – in the NHS.
This week, leaflets are being distributed to every household across the country explaining why NHS records are being shared. The records will not carry names and addresses, and will be held securely, but they will be identifiable from details such as the postcode and NHS number. As Dame Fiona Caldicott said in her review of the scheme, published last April, there is “a duty to share information which can be as important as the duty to protect confidentiality”.
An example cited is that of bowel cancer, where survival rates vary widely. Doctors believe the disparity is linked to the tortuous pathways followed by some patients as they try to access specialist care. Sharing information on their diagnostic and treatment history could help identify shortcomings in the NHS.
The test of the system will be whether it maintains confidentiality, as promised. There have been a number of reports of unauthorised access to records, and 700,000 people who opted out of the forerunner of the present scheme, which involved sharing summary records, have been told they will not have to opt out again.
Civil liberties campaigners object that people should be asked to opt in rather than opt out – a move that would strangle the scheme at birth. There are also complaints that anonymised data will be sold on to pharmaceutical manufacturers and private health companies for profit.
Rather than forgoing them, the NHS should share in those profits. If the data fetches a fair price and helps sustain a comprehensive health service free at the point of use into the future it is to be welcomed, not condemned. The NHS has one of the finest data banks in the world – it should use it, for the benefit of the health service and, more importantly, its users.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments