Patients (Information and Records) (Hansard, 1 February 1990)

§ Mr. Freeman

Following consultation with the medical profession, it was accepted that a draft code of practice on "Communicating information to patients and their access to their own manual health records" could be used as the basis for a wide consultation exercise, although there was no formal approval of or agreement to it.

The draft code was circulated on 23 May 1989 to a wide range of health professional and patient interests bodies and to health authority management. Twenty-five copies of the consultation papers were issued. Some recipients incorporated within their responses comments received from their constituent members. Others copied the document to other interested parties who responded on their own account. Overall, 52 separate responses were received.

From five of the six responses received from bodies representing the medical profession, it is clear that the majority of the profession remains firmly opposed in principle to patients having a right of access to their own health records. It believes that it would be harmful to patients, would result in less comprehensive records, would seriously affect the trust between doctor and patient and would divert resources from patient care. These views are held particularly strongly by the JCC and the GMC. The GMSC's reply to the consultation drew our attention to the conference of local medical committees resolution passed in 1988 That this conference rejects the principle of open access to their records by patients".

The sixth respondent body regarded the principles as acceptable, on the assumption that doctors could keep separate personal notes, whilst recognising that the 352W character of medical record-keeping would be affected. One individual doctor also expressed his opposition to the principle.

Of the other 45 respondents, some of whom offered detailed comments including reservations about resource implications, the need to secure co-operation by doctors, procedural difficulties, training requirements and the need for time to allow for administrative and organisational changes, not one has taken a stance against the principle of access to manual records by or on behalf of patients.

The Campaign for Freedom of Information doubts whether the medical profession would effectively implement access to medical records on a non-statutory basis. It takes as evidence of the profession's deep-seated resistance to access the fact that it has taken two years to produce even minimum proposals. The Campaign for Freedom of Information has therefore produced a draft Bill aimed at securing statutory rights of patients' access. It has subsequently been adopted as a private Member's Bill by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson). Twelve other respondents share the Campaign for Freedom of Information's view that anything short of legislation will be inadequate and that access can only be assured only by statutory provision. A number of these as well as some hospital and Health Service organisations have given their public endorsement to the Campaign for Freedom of Information's draft Bill.

The concerns of the medical profession—that greater access by patients to their records will affect the quality of medical record-keeping to the ultimate disadvantage of both patient and doctor—were brought to the attention of non-medical parties to the consultation exercise. Nevertheless, there is a clear balance of opinion in support of a right of access.