This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Patients given legal right to have 'factual errors' corrected in medical records

Patients have the right to ask their GP to correct any factual errors they see in their medical records, according to the new NHS Constitution.

In the Government’s response to its consultation on the NHS Constitution, they re-asserted patients’ right to access their health records, and added that they have the right to ‘have any factual inaccuracies corrected’.

The accompanying handbook clarified that this did not give the patient the right to change a clinical opinion and that if a GP disagreed there was an error then the patient’s disagreement should be written into their notes.

The news follows comments made by Dame Fiona Caldicott, who is leading the Government’s information governance review. Last November she said patients should be able to amend errors in their records, but should not be able to change their medical histories.

The changes to the NHS Constitution come as the Government began to implement its target for GP practices to offer patients access to full patient records, appointment booking and test results by 2015, with a new DES beginning this year.

The handbook said: ‘You have the right to have any factual inaccuracies corrected. Ask your health professional about amending your records if you believe they contain a factual error.’

It added: ‘There is no obligation to amend professional opinion, however sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between fact and opinion. Where you and the health professional cannot agree on whether the information in question is accurate you can ask that a statement is included to set out that the accuracy of the information is disputed by you.’

They added that they removed a statement which said that health records ‘will always be used to manage your treatment in your best interest’ as this could sound ‘paternalistic’.

The handbook clarified that there are only a few exceptions where patients should be denied access to their records, such as where the information includes details about another person, or where the information may be harmful, for example, where serious mental illness means the patient may be a risk to themselves.

Elsewhere in their response, the Government formally enshrined doctors’ duty to promote healthier lifestyles in the constitution, despite concerns voiced during the consultation process that this could lead to performance management.

The handbook said GPs should provide brief lifestyle advice and/or refer patients to an appropriate service to help patients understand how they can improve their health and wellbeing and reduce health inequalities. They should understand and respect a patient’s feelings towards discussing their lifestyle behaviours during this process.

However, the handbook fell short of asking GPs to promote healthier lifestyles every time they see a patient, instead saying they should identify appropriate opportunities ‘as they arise’.

The handbook said: ‘Making Every Contact Count is an opportunity to improve patient care, treatment and outcomes and help people live well for longer.’

Readers' comments (3)

  • I am being thick but patients have this right under the DPA! Credit Reference Agencies offer this to comply with the DPA.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I agree with Helen Wilkinson. I don't understand why this is even being mentioned at the moment. It is BAU and has been for years. Perhaps part of trying to knock back the short sighted opposition from some quarters to on-line access to all records?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What an extraordinary reason to give for removing the statement which said that health records ‘will always be used to manage your treatment in your best interest’!

    In removing this statement from the Constitution, the Government has effectively removed the explicit undertaking that your records will be used to *manage your treatment*, leaving wide open a whole range of other planned uses - including many that are nothing to do with patients' direct medical care and some that won't even seek proper consent.

    So now all patients have is an undertaking to be "informed" about what is being done with their confidential information - informed how? By one or more ambiguously-worded leaflets or posters in their GP's reception? - and a conditional "chance to object".

    I suspect many patients will feel this is whole lot more 'paternalistic' than any promise to manage their treatment in their best interest.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say