Our trustworthy government.

[Hamble]

Having fully anomonised and unidentifiable data is OK as long as there are safeguards and stiff penalties in place, problems arise when data comes from many sources and it gets pieced together.

GP's will never end up with the NHS it is too lucrative and there are too many Drs in high places to make sure it wont happen.

When Labour was in Gov it upped G.p's salaries and workloads to keep them in the jobs haemorrhaging partners due to workload and loss of autonomy in referring patients to hospital trusts for treatment.

What do you think happened?

G'p's retired
They went part time or job shared.
Applied from out of the UK
Posts were filled by women who (rightly) took more time off than men for maternity leave.

Practice groups went from mostly partnership to salaried.
It has become hard to fill posts.
Staff and rent costs have gone up.
nhs hospitals nurses triage fully qualified Dr requests for tests and treatment they cannot provide.
G.p's do not encourage their children in their career.

The 'old' nhs trained G.p is a differently trained fish to the new.
I am not saying it is bad just a modern movement from the local
family based experience of yesteryear.

The nhs will be able to provide a salaried G.p service cheaper in the future.

[Tentill4]

As individuals we can opt out of this by writing to our GP Practice in the following format:

Dear GP,
I am writing to give notice that I refuse consent for my identifiable information / and the identifiable information of those for whom I am responsible [delete as appropriate] to be transferred from your practice systems for any purpose other than my medical care. Please take whatever steps necessary to ensure my / our confidential personal information is not uploaded and record my dissent by whatever means possible. This includes adding the ‘Dissent from secondary use of GP patient identifiable data’ code (Read v2: 9Nu0, CTV3: XaZ89 or SNOMED CT: 827241000000103) to my / our records. I am aware of the implications of this request, understand it will not affect the care that I / we receive, and I will notify you should I change my mind.
Yours sincerely,
(Signature)

Include your full name, DoB. Address and NHS number.

The actual form is available online to print off as a PDF or a Word doc from the article link “opt out” in the article here:
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ecords-england

If you want to opt out it is important to get your letter/form requesting opt-out of this data sharing to your GP practice well before the 23^rd June!

https://fullfact.org/health/nhs-data/

https://www.nhs.uk/your-nhs-data-mat...e-your-choice/

https://digital.nhs.uk/services/national-data-opt-out

[Alikado]

When Labour was in Gov it upped G.p's salaries and workloads to keep them in the jobs haemorrhaging partners due to workload and loss of autonomy in referring patients to hospital trusts for treatment.

What do you think happened?

G'p's retired
They went part time or job shared.
Applied from out of the UK
Posts were filled by women who (rightly) took more time off than men for maternity leave.

Practice groups went from mostly partnership to salaried.
It has become hard to fill posts.
Staff and rent costs have gone up.
nhs hospitals nurses triage fully qualified Dr requests for tests and treatment they cannot provide.
G.p's do not encourage their children in their career.

The 'old' nhs trained G.p is a differently trained fish to the new.
I am not saying it is bad just a modern movement from the local
family based experience of yesteryear.

The nhs will be able to provide a salaried G.p service cheaper in the future.

The GP's started retiring when the Tories put a cap on Pension Pots, many reached the top and decided it wasn't worth working in the NHS and just started doing bits of Private work.

[Hamble]

The GP's started retiring when the Tories put a cap on Pension Pots, many reached the top and decided it wasn't worth working in the NHS and just started doing bits of Private work.

It is very complicated I shall try explain the relevant bits.

2004 Labour overhauled NHS introduced QOF to bribe G.p's complete more work for extra payments plus big pension increase.
G.p's took incentive some put even more earnings in NHS pension scheme.
When Tory's got in power realised the scale of pension payouts was unsustainable took case to high court to reverse lost.

This affected hospital consultants too.
Tory's capped pension contributions . Retirement stopped the pension contributions plus earnings putting payee in higher tax bracket thus losing savings as long as they continued in work.

Not many Gp's would work privately after retirement
paying higher tax bracket.


QOF (pronounced 'quoff' ) quality outcomes framework.

[said]

The latest news on this is as follows:
The BMA has called for a delay to the Government’s new patient data-sharing programme amid concerns around the timescale involved in patients opting out.
Patients have until 23 June to opt out of the General Practice Data for Planning and Research (GPDPR) programme, but the BMA says it feels this timeline is ‘too short’ and that NHS Digital has not ‘transparently and actively engaged the public in increasing awareness’.
It added that ‘rushing’ the programme out would undermine public confidence.
Pulse revealed last month that privacy campaigners fear the new automatic extractions of data will be ‘far bigger’ and ‘more intrusive’ than the scrapped care.data project.
Last week, the BMA and RCGP wrote to NHS Digital urging for improved communication with the public about the data extraction programme.
BMA GP committee executive team member and IT lead Dr Farah Jameel said communication from NHS Digital to the public has been ‘completely inadequate’, adding it has caused ‘confusion for patients and GPs alike’.
She said: ‘Family doctors have a duty to their patients, and have their best interest at heart – so are understandably hesitant to comply with something that patients may know nothing about and that they themselves do not fully understand, even if this is a legal requirement.’
Dr Jameel said that with less than four weeks until the extraction date, ‘it’s clear that the timeline needs a hard reset’, adding this should only happen when the public are able to make a ‘fully informed decision’ about what happens with their data and how to opt-out if that is what they want to do..
She said ‘unclear messaging’ and a ‘failure’ to develop a far-reaching public engagement plan has resulted in a ‘completely unrealistic’ expectation that GPs are left to communicate the complex changes to patients and warned rushing it through could risk people losing confidence in GPs.
This comes as doctors, including GPs, today threatened a legal challenge against the Government unless it reverses its ‘unlawful’ plan to carry out the ‘largest seizure of GP data in NHS history’.
Earlier this week, the RCGP warned that the job of informing the public about the impending mass extraction of patient data ‘must not be left to busy GPs’ while they are in the midst of ‘extreme workload pressure’ and focusing on the Covid pandemic.
GPs in some parts of England, including East London, have also been urged not to allow the NHS Digital data extraction, even though this is technically against the law.

[Alikado]

The latest news on this is as follows:
The BMA has called for a delay to the Government’s new patient data-sharing programme amid concerns around the timescale involved in patients opting out.
Patients have until 23 June to opt out of the General Practice Data for Planning and Research (GPDPR) programme, but the BMA says it feels this timeline is ‘too short’ and that NHS Digital has not ‘transparently and actively engaged the public in increasing awareness’.
It added that ‘rushing’ the programme out would undermine public confidence.
Pulse revealed last month that privacy campaigners fear the new automatic extractions of data will be ‘far bigger’ and ‘more intrusive’ than the scrapped care.data project.
Last week, the BMA and RCGP wrote to NHS Digital urging for improved communication with the public about the data extraction programme.
BMA GP committee executive team member and IT lead Dr Farah Jameel said communication from NHS Digital to the public has been ‘completely inadequate’, adding it has caused ‘confusion for patients and GPs alike’.
She said: ‘Family doctors have a duty to their patients, and have their best interest at heart – so are understandably hesitant to comply with something that patients may know nothing about and that they themselves do not fully understand, even if this is a legal requirement.’
Dr Jameel said that with less than four weeks until the extraction date, ‘it’s clear that the timeline needs a hard reset’, adding this should only happen when the public are able to make a ‘fully informed decision’ about what happens with their data and how to opt-out if that is what they want to do..
She said ‘unclear messaging’ and a ‘failure’ to develop a far-reaching public engagement plan has resulted in a ‘completely unrealistic’ expectation that GPs are left to communicate the complex changes to patients and warned rushing it through could risk people losing confidence in GPs.
This comes as doctors, including GPs, today threatened a legal challenge against the Government unless it reverses its ‘unlawful’ plan to carry out the ‘largest seizure of GP data in NHS history’.
Earlier this week, the RCGP warned that the job of informing the public about the impending mass extraction of patient data ‘must not be left to busy GPs’ while they are in the midst of ‘extreme workload pressure’ and focusing on the Covid pandemic.
GPs in some parts of England, including East London, have also been urged not to allow the NHS Digital data extraction, even though this is technically against the law.

You're out of date it was announced in Parliament on Tuesday that the date has been put back to September.

Simon Bolton, head of NHS Digital, said all collected data would be protected or pseudonymised before it leaves the GP "to ensure patients cannot be directly identified".

[Ceam]

Can't be arsed reading some else's rant, I'll Just add.


There is no such thing as a trust worthy government. Doesn't matter who, Doesn't matter where.

[said]

Can't be arsed reading some else's rant, I'll Just add.


There is no such thing as a trust worthy government. Doesn't matter who, Doesn't matter where.

I agree with that - and it does not matter who is in Government. As one wit on facebook said " If you want to have good health - do away with the Government."

[Hamble]

I agree with that - and it does not matter who is in Government. As one wit on facebook said " If you want to have good health - do away with the Government."

I think post people would rather have a free at the point of delivery nhs in exchange for the State comparing you to fit people.

[Hamble]

It is funny seeing the G7 leaders line up I did not realise that Justin Trudeau was so tall.