Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
The Back Pages

COMMENTARY

Chris Johnstone
British Journal of General Practice 2010; 60 (579): 781. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp10X532486
Chris Johnstone
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Sir Denis is quite right in saying that confidentiality is the cornerstone of general practice. General practice is still a relationship-based profession and confidentiality allows patients to say things they would not, could not say anywhere else. The idea that these deep secrets may be available on Facebook would ruin the doctor-patient relationship instantly. He is also quite right in saying that ‘We will allow only those involved in your care to access your records unless you give your consent'. So what is the problem?

The problem is outlined by Professors Pattison and Marshall in their RCGP News article.1 We GPs are sharing more and more patient data with more and more people. One of the great complaints about the NHS is the lack of communication between different carers, especially primary and secondary care. General practice is highly computerised, secondary care is catching up and we now have the technology to share as much data as we care to store electronically.

The problem is that we have decided that presumed consent is the same as consent and that you have to opt out of having your data shared rather than opt in. As a GP I regularly send a computer summary print out when sending patients into hospital; my electronic referrals automatically carry the patient summary with them; the Emergency Care Summary (Summary Care Record in England) is regularly shared with out-of-hours doctors and nurses as well as A&E staff and pharmacists and many more people are applying for access to that data. All this is done in the name of patient protection and better communication. It is possible to access 100 000s of patients’ lab and X-ray records from nearly every ward in my health board via a system called Sci Store. This data is less and less secure, the potential for a breach of confidentiality rising exponentially. The Professors would appear to have a point.

However Sir Denis may not have to worry too much. Even though we have the technology and we are not afraid to use it, the information which really matters, those deep secrets, those consultations which cannot be measured, but are the essence of our work, these consultations are rarely recorded. We use coded language or simply do not record them. We may record everything we need for the QOF, but the really important stuff is stored in our heads not on hard discs.

So although our profession is changing with the new technology and it will throw up a lot of new problems as well as solutions, it will rarely touch the most important part. There is no computer programme yet which can replace the human, humane relationship which powers our consultations. That relationship gives a depth of trust which allows our patients to let themselves be healed. That personal interaction is not programmable and will always be confidential between a patient and their doctor.

  • © British Journal of General Practice, 2010.

REFERENCE

  1. ↵
    1. Pattison S,
    2. Marshall M
    (2010) Is Confidentiality a Con? RCGP News 4:July: http://www.rcgp.org.uk/pdf/RCGP_News_July10.pdf (accessed 13 Sep 2010).
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 60 (579)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 60, Issue 579
October 2010
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
COMMENTARY
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
COMMENTARY
Chris Johnstone
British Journal of General Practice 2010; 60 (579): 781. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp10X532486

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
COMMENTARY
Chris Johnstone
British Journal of General Practice 2010; 60 (579): 781. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp10X532486
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • REFERENCE
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

The Back Pages

  • The ethics of listening and responding to patients' narratives: implications for practice
  • How big is your society?
  • Evidence-based medicine and Web 2.0: friend or foe?
Show more The Back Pages

Commentary

  • COMMENTARY
  • COMMENTARY
Show more Commentary

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242