Getting test results from dr's surgery

[Buttons11]

I'm still waiting for my GP surgery to get into the 21st Century. We used to be able to book Drs appointments on line until they decided we were using it too often so now we are interrogated by the receptionist who decides whether we get to actually see the dr or have a telephone appointment

If it's any consolation my surgery stopped people booking appointments on line too, and we also get interrogated by the receptionist, but don't get telephone appts unless it's an emergency. We have to ring at 8.30am for an on the day appt, and I have often redialed 20 times (I kid you not) before getting through. They also insist every time on asking "does your mobile number end XXXX"

 

[AndBreathe]

You will not see any test results from
Any hospital or anywhere other than the GP if your GP service has not authorised it..

I was the trial patient at my GP practice...
I got diagnosed with cancer whilst I was the trial patient given full access to rad notes written to Dr by Consultants...
My consultant had not told me my life expectancy expectation but he wrote it to the GP. This was how I found out my prognosis... no conversation, but by finding out online. My GPs did not grant full access to Patients after the mishandling by the Consultant at the Cancer Unit.... he should have told me but didnt.

All patients could still see the basics of appts (coded text) and results from tests organised by GP. But NOT consultants letters scanned or emailed to the GP system.

Our GPs could not rely upon the Consultants to give full data to patients
So full access was restricted.

That is why I now ask all consultants to copy me letters to GPs.......

My understanding is GPs are obliged to have made the coded content available (since last year), but there is no obligation to release the full content.

Whilst I can't imagine how you felt when you read your consultant's letter to your GP, something almost on the flip-side happened to me, after my own slice and dice.

When the online records were available, I requested expanded access (on from the repeat prescriptions and appointments), only to read the result of my breast surgery had been a carcinoma which was incorrect. Now, I had in my possession, as copy of the Consultant letter to my GP, confirming the actual findings. I had already seen the pathology reports.

I had a devil of a job to have the record corrected as the Practice Manager said the coding was correct. Needless to say, I argued that robustly, asking her to define a carcinoma she couldn't), then she came back and said it didn't matter because anyone interested would read the full record and not just the coded content. I disagreed on the basis that medical reports (for the likes of insurance claims), don't usually need massive detail, but declaring someone had had such a devastating diagnosis could be harmful at some point.

Anyway, I got it changed in the end, but I was really quite upset by the whole process, and I like to think of myself as being a calm and level-headed individual.

Whatever is done, it'll be imperfect, because there is a human input and human interpretation, but it has to be better than that coding going on, and me never knowing, until it really mattered. That's not the time to be fighting any battle.

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

she also just said that we're working on it.

I wonder when GPs first started to record things digitally? I'd be very surprised to see my notes going back much than the length of time I've been with my present surgery. Those records held manually may never get onto digitally held records. Even those held digitally may be in a different format and not automatically transferred from one system to another.

There really ought to be one good standard instead of docs being able to choose!! They are meant to be thinking of the patient!!

I'm not sure if my memory serves me well but I have a vague memory of a contract for an NHS wide system that a company called EDS bid for and won. This is despite their involvement in other well documented failed systems, so well documented that they are taught as part of degree courses to show how not to run a computer project.

The project turned out to be so immense that they capitulated and then it was left to everyone to do their own thing, hence the raft of different systems in use across the NHS. Poor old GPs who are not necessarily the most IT literate were left to get something quickly and were confronted by salesmen out to make a quick buck or two.

 

[donnellysdogs]

My understanding is GPs are obliged to have made the coded content available (since last year), but there is no obligation to release the full content.

Whilst I can't imagine how you felt when you read your consultant's letter to your GP, something almost on the flip-side happened to me, after my own slice and dice.

When the online records were available, I requested expanded access (on from the repeat prescriptions and appointments), only to read the result of my breast surgery had been a carcinoma which was incorrect. Now, I had in my possession, as copy of the Consultant letter to my GP, confirming the actual findings. I had already seen the pathology reports.

I had a devil of a job to have the record corrected as the Practice Manager said the coding was correct. Needless to say, I argued that robustly, asking her to define a carcinoma she couldn't), then she came back and said it didn't matter because anyone interested would read the full record and not just the coded content. I disagreed on the basis that medical reports (for the likes of insurance claims), don't usually need massive detail, but declaring someone had had such a devastating diagnosis could be harmful at some point.

Anyway, I got it changed in the end, but I was really quite upset by the whole process, and I like to think of myself as being a calm and level-headed individual.

Whatever is done, it'll be imperfect, because there is a human input and human interpretation, but it has to be better than that coding going on, and me never knowing, until it really mattered. That's not the time to be fighting any battle.

I waa horrified that they took full access a way from our patients... I thought it should have been used as an example to get consultants to fully tell patients all details!

Even a few weeks back with my soine isotope scan the reviewer of my scan wrlte some really odd notes on my scan because she new I had access to them....

Yes, we should all have access to the coded versions...

I think they are worried that their interpretations are incorrect to be honest. I had a therapist write 21 errors about me in a letter. She copied it to me. I was horrified and insisted it was rewritten. She went off sick. It took 3 months and 3 calls to Manager and threat of a complaint to CEO.
Fortunately the original letter was sent to my GP who never reads letters over 2 sentences long (he admitted to that)...so letters were only being scanned and sent to my records.

By asking for my medical records from hospital was the only way I found out that they said "patient refused biopsy on right breast"- why would I ever do that? I had 16 core biopsies from left and removal!! Thanks god I now ask and pay to see my records.

I think they are too scared about their data being incorrect to be honest..

 

[Salvia]

I wonder when GPs first started to record things digitally? I'd be very surprised to see my notes going back much than the length of time I've been with my present surgery. Those records held manually may never get onto digitally held records. Even those held digitally may be in a different format and not automatically transferred from one system to another.

I agree that digital notes may not go back too far but computers and computer recording has been around for many years; and it makes sense that coverage and uptake would be patchy and variable. Files used to be scanned years ago and put onto microfiche - I don't know whether that format's transferable or not. There must be some method for including older records, becuase others on this site have mentioned seeing theirs, and my own practice has said they're working on it to get them included. I can only live in hope, though I know there will be large gaps, if only for the fact that I didn't visit a gp for some 20yrs or so before my current gp.

It's the examples given by donnellydogs and AndBreathe and their issues in dealing with the errors that make me slightly nervous. I want to know if there is anything in my past that might indicate potential for future problems with me and mine, such that I could take action to do something about it now. I am very sure that my current gp doesn't, and never has, read through the whole of my record to fully understand my history.

Up to now health records have been written with immunity for the writer, knowing the patient would never see them, and possibly they may not have been as carefully written as they should have been. This would include some records containing a few choice comments and observations that may or may not be accurate. I suspect those are what my surgery is worried about; but I'm equally sure that many, if not most, records will be objective and accurate, even if slanted in their own favour. There are many people who will not be interested in seeing their records and I can imagine that practices will have to consider the workload involved in providing access for the (probably) relatively few people who want to see theirs.

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

I agree that digital notes may not go back too far but computers and computer recording has been around for many years; and it makes sense that coverage and uptake would be patchy and variable. Files used to be scanned years ago and put onto microfiche - I don't know whether that format's transferable or not. There must be some method for including older records, becuase others on this site have mentioned seeing theirs, and my own practice has said they're working on it to get them included. I can only live in hope, though I know there will be large gaps, if only for the fact that I didn't visit a gp for some 20yrs or so before my current gp.

It looks like it varies from surgery to surgery, my surgery are getting there but haven't got use to the idea of forgotten passwords, they give you a new ID and password, something I think they might regret one day in the future. I didn't continue when told to create a new ID but I'm guessing that there would have been problems with another user with my date of birth and name, ME, and my forgotten password.

I see the concern about inaccuracies and even things one wasn't aware of, I only discovered I was an alcoholic by mistake (I haven't touched alcohol for 8 years), because I was looking at the screen my GP was on at the time. My liver's return to poor function came up when I saw the diabetic specialist, rather than when I saw the GP about my blood tests, so all a bit hit and miss.

 

[Bluetit1802]

My on line records go back to 1948!

My baby vaccinations, and details of my broken leg in 1952 are there. There is a big gap and they all resume in full from 2007. @Buttons11 my cancer stuff is there, diagnosis and treatment type.

All the stuff the nurse does is also there - weight, waist, BP etc. with graphs.

I love it.

 

[wiseowl_123]

Good afternoon I don't want to see my medical history,ignorance is bliss for me

 

[Salvia]

My on line records go back to 1948!

My baby vaccinations, and details of my broken leg in 1952 are there. There is a big gap and they all resume in full from 2007. @Buttons11 my cancer stuff is there, diagnosis and treatment type.

All the stuff the nurse does is also there - weight, waist, BP etc. with graphs.

I love it.

(( jealous! )) (jealous!! ))

 

[Daphne917]

(( jealous! )) (jealous!! ))

Same here - I'm going to collect our monthly prescriptions on Thursday so I'll ask again but won't hold my breath!!

 

[donnellysdogs]

I agree that digital notes may not go back too far but computers and computer recording has been around for many years; and it makes sense that coverage and uptake would be patchy and variable. Files used to be scanned years ago and put onto microfiche - I don't know whether that format's transferable or not. There must be some method for including older records, becuase others on this site have mentioned seeing theirs, and my own practice has said they're working on it to get them included. I can only live in hope, though I know there will be large gaps, if only for the fact that I didn't visit a gp for some 20yrs or so before my current gp.

It's the examples given by donnellydogs and AndBreathe and their issues in dealing with the errors that make me slightly nervous. I want to know if there is anything in my past that might indicate potential for future problems with me and mine, such that I could take action to do something about it now. I am very sure that my current gp doesn't, and never has, read through the whole of my record to fully understand my history.

Up to now health records have been written with immunity for the writer, knowing the patient would never see them, and possibly they may not have been as carefully written as they should have been. This would include some records containing a few choice comments and observations that may or may not be accurate. I suspect those are what my surgery is worried about; but I'm equally sure that many, if not most, records will be objective and accurate, even if slanted in their own favour. There are many people who will not be interested in seeing their records and I can imagine that practices will have to consider the workload involved in providing access for the (probably) relatively few people who want to see theirs.

My records from my GP were all manually checked back to 2003 when they found out aspartame and sweetener intolerance had not been added or discussed with me...

I had asked to view my records, but they were allowed to check my records first. When they came up with the aspartame and I had physically seen my records stacked up high in office being checked, well, O told them I didn't need to actually view my records then.

However, if I had wanted to view them somebody , a GP would have had to sit with me.

 

[Salvia]

My records from my GP were all manually checked back to 2003 when they found out aspartame and sweetener intolerance had not been added or discussed with me...

I had asked to view my records, but they were allowed to check my records first. When they came up with the aspartame and I had physically seen my records stacked up high in office being checked, well, O told them I didn't need to actually view my records then.

However, if I had wanted to view them somebody , a GP would have had to sit with me.

From reading around the site I have learnt that you have had a pretty rough time of it in life, to say the least, most certainly a lot more issues than I've had to contend with. Given the history, I'd imagine that your records might be a bit unusual - and larger - than most! I've never actually asked to see my paper records, so have no idea what the response would be. I can understand that there would need to be someone with you, a gp in this case (presumably to explain stuff and because of doctor/patient confidentiality issues). When I was at work, staff could see their own personal files, by appointment and always in the presence of a manager or deputy. This was to stop possibility of anyone removing stuff or defacing documents in the file, or even adding papers/notes.

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

My on line records go back to 1948!

I'm going to ask my nurse today how far back mine go (going to give some blood for HbA1c etc), I might even have a chat with the practice manager and see what exactly goes on in our surgery.

That's an immense amount of work scanning stuff in, I've just scanned 100 pictures for MIL, drove me potty, maybe they have industrial pieces of equipment that you just "feed" with documents. Still an immense task, you're very lucky.

Whoops, forgot to click on "Post Reply" and I'm back from vampire nurse already (it's OK she doesn't mind terms of endearment, should have what she called me "Sweetie Pie" indeed LOL). Anyway, I had a very interesting conversation with the practice manager and it would seem that it's going to be different depending on your practice. Mine is quite small with three part time doctors who are all bringing up families and I'm happy with that arrangement, not seeing my usual doctor is OK, because they are all lovely.

My surgery took the decision to only transfer electronic records onto their system and hold the paper ones in an archive easily accessible within the surgery. I've re-applied for access because I forgot my password and the form effectively says "tell us if there's something wrong with your notes", very clever really, accepting it might happen, but it's my responsibility to tell them, I'm OK with that, they changed my alcoholic ways as soon as I mentioned it.

My wife's surgery has 11,000 patients, 3 full time and 3 part time doctors. A large number will be elderly, that's the sort of place we live in, loads of retirees, so they have also taken the decision not to digitise all records. I guess if the doctor frequently refers to notes back in the depths of time they can always put them on the computer but it's not really necessary for everyone. Only an opinion.

Edit: I was intrigued with the whole thing about digitising records, hospital records are another issue which the government has allocated a £4 billion to promote the use of technology including £1.8 billion to create a paper free NHS and get rid of fax machines.

One method they are using is archiving all records to an off site store, and when a request is made, the records are retrieved and scanned to make them available on line permanently and then put them back in the archive. Easy peasy.

 

[Prem51]

2hrs! I had to wait 20 days!

20 days! I had to wait 29 weeks!
My online records only go back to 2000, which is when I became a patient at this practice. But they do show I was diagnosed with depression from 1965. That's probably because that's the only thing I have seen GPs about, until the last 7 years when I was diagnosed with hypothyroidism, and then diabetes 18 months ago.
They only show 'Problems' and test results.
The test results are interesting as I seem to be within the acceptable parameters for most readings.
The HbA1c graph follows my weight graph quite closely:

 

[Bluetit1802]

Some of the more recent manual entries on my on line records are hilarious. My waist size last year was recorded as 28cm. The graph showed a huge dip that looked good, but of course it was actually 28 inches. The assistant nurse forgot to convert it to metric. For those who don't know, 28cm is 11 inches!!!! Tiny waist indeed!

On the alcohol weekly unit page it jumped from around 8 and10 units to 42 units one time. God knows where she got 42 units from, but it wasn't from me. I like a glass of wine, but not that many in a week! That doesn't look good on the graph and I will be contesting it.

So things depend on the quality of in-putting sometimes.

 

[Salvia]

Some of the more recent manual entries on my on line records are hilarious. My waist size last year was recorded as 28cm. The graph showed a huge dip that looked good, but of course it was actually 28 inches. The assistant nurse forgot to convert it to metric. For those who don't know, 28cm is 11 inches!!!! Tiny waist indeed!

On the alcohol weekly unit page it jumped from around 8 and10 units to 42 units one time. God knows where she got 42 units from, but it wasn't from me. I like a glass of wine, but not that many in a week! That doesn't look good on the graph and I will be contesting it.

So things depend on the quality of in-putting sometimes.

Crikey Bluetit, 28 inches is tiny let alone 28cms, good for you! (particularly on 42 units a week )


ps only joking

pps about the 42 units,I mean

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

I will be contesting it.

Or just pointing out their errors.

 

[slip]

Or just pointing out there errors.

'Their' - LOL!!

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

'Their' - LOL!!

I'm glad you pointed it out because I'm for ever quietly moaning about people's spelling, well I used to. The thing is that I've noticed that when I'm at a computer keyboard and typing like fury (been using computer keyboards since 1973 on a daily basis) my body disengages my brain and lets my fingers get on with it. It also causes lots of missing words and positive statements that should have been negative (a missing "not"). My brain's spell checker is so much slower than my fingers.

If I proof read stuff I normally catch out the many typos that my fingers are responsible for. As I have O.C.D. I have corrected my spelling mistake. LOL

By the way, don't start me on apostrophes. LOL

 

[Daphne917]

Same here - I'm going to collect our monthly prescriptions on Thursday so I'll ask again but won't hold my breath!!

Well I asked the question and got a somewhat blunt reply i.e. No! So I asked 'when would they be going on line because I thought all practices had to allow patients to access their records on line from April 2016' response - "don't know anyway it's up to individual practices when they go on line and what access they allow but you can ring up and get your results anyway!" So no access for me at the moment!!