This paper discusses the more detailed meanings and hidden complexities which may be attributed to the terms ‘Electronic Patient Record’ (EPR) and ‘Electronic Health Record’ (EHR) from the recent UK NHS Information Strategy. A scenario is provided as a hook upon which to hang the arguments put forward. The paper then looks at the practice of public health, in particular of healthcare needs assessment and its likely value to the new Primary Care Group (PCG), and indicates how the EPR and EHR could come to greatly enhance such assessment, given a measure of discipline by clinicians when entering data. Finally, the paper discusses issues of access and confidentiality and the way the requirements of these may be handled, with special reference to possible complications created by the inception of PCGs.
References
1.
NHS Executive. Information for Health. Department of Health, 1998.
2.
World Health Organization. International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps - A manual of classification relating to the consequences of disease. Geneva: WHO, 1980.
3.
The Data Protection Act 1998. Chapter 29. London: HMSO, 1998.
4.
European Parliament and Council Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. European Commission, 24 October 1995.
5.
The Caldicott Committee. Report on the review of patient-identifiable information. Department of Health, December 1997.
6.
Griew A Ret al.Population health summary system, final report, 1999. Obtainable on request or from http://137.44.37.10/chi/ (click on ‘PHSS Reports Library’).
7.
Griew A R.A strategy for security of the electronic patient record, Version 3. Welsh Office, 1999.
