Dismantling IT and urban flu myths

According to Pulse (Tories unveil plans to ‘dismantle’ NHS IT infrastructure) a new Conservative government would dismantle the national programme for IT in favour of a lovely local version instead which a bit similar to arguments surrounding local versus centralised medicine albeit this has some degree of logic viz quality; somehow IT projects do get stereotyped as unfathomly unwieldly whatever original size/budget. The BMA welcomed the move but wanted the control of patient records to stay with patients not private companies. It seems it will fall into private hands in any case, with Labour they love a good PPI. Perhaps people should walk around with it round their neck on a secure dongle? It is interesting where this will go now that many people are publishing details freely on the internet and not making the connection…

Meanwhile something I don’t think we have mentioned yet on this blog is avian flu or its many other names. The Lancet sped up a systematic review of the use of Tamiflu et al or neuraminidase inhibitors and found that they are not beneficial when given out to the healthy general populace…hmm evidence based policy is rather thin on the ground now anyone can ring up for their antivirals; one GP says public health is now a patronising public nuisance.

And a last thing I came across today is a blind search engine test. Blindsearch, from a Microsoft employee with no much time on his hands, searches across Google, Yahoo and Bing and gets you to vote for the one you prefer when you’ve seen the results, the search engine is revealed once you’ve voted. It seemed to slide off my page but that might be a local problem, otherwise intriguing.

NHS health records to private sector?

Personally, I’d be delighted if the Tories got Google or Microsoft or someone to build the NHS records system. Might actually work. Read the news story on the HSJ here. That nice (?) Mr Cameron also says he will review all quangos should they come into government, including the bloated (did I say bloated?) NICE and Care Quality Commission. Keep the public sector on their toes eh David? Mind you, the opposition always says they’ll get rid of quangos, until they get into office then they just create a whole lot more. Jobs for the boys (and girls).

Online health records; all for the good?

Online personal health records: You might just have noticed that there is much talk around about Google and Microsoft’s online personal health record offerings. It has been assumed, particularly by those of us in the industry, that demand will be huge and that it will be a major boon for the new legions of ‘informed’ patients. A few recent posts have however asked a) are these Google and MS products really good for the consumer, and b) does said consumer actually really give a monkey’s? Are these products fulfilling a previously unmet need, or are they made, like many of the less successful web2.0 projects, with the “build it and they will come” model?

The Krafty Librarian gives us an anecdotal story of how her partner got into a right anxious muddle by asking Dr Google what his test results meant (he had viewed them online, rather than had them given, and explained to him, by a health professional), while the Health Care Blog asks “What are the circumstances for using a PHR and do the benefits outweigh the perceived risks?”, and fails to come up with a satisfactory answer…

Online health – not just Google!

Remember Microsoft Health Vault? Yes, it’s not only Google out there trying to elbow their way into the pain and misery of the world. Microsoft, who have caused so much of it themselves (I jest!), are of course aiming to become big players too. They have signed up with Kaiser Permanente to test their Vault on Kaiser’s employees. It is suggested that Kaiser were “particularly impressed by Microsoft’s technology for protecting the privacy and security of personal data.” And as a side note, although MS and Google are using different platforms, it appears that they are aiming for true interoperability. We’ll see.