OneGuyFromBarlick

I've been doing repeat prescriptions on line for years now, but the system has now changed , and I needed to produce photo identity, and proof of address at the surgery at which I've been registered for thirty years. I didn't make a fuss - just complied. The new system is (of course) a lot more complex than the old one. I also get the pills delivered free of charge to my door by the pharmacy.

Not sure about your living arrangements. It is quite easy to get all you need without leaving the house. Several supermarkets, eBay and Abebooks will deliver to your door all you need for body and soul at very reasonable cost. The supermarkets actually lose money on the deal, but none is brave enough to stop the service.

The online repeat prescription service, in Barlick, uses 'Patient Access'. The process sends the prescription direct to the pharmacy of choice and is available for collection within 48 hours of request. The pharmacy do offer a home delivery service which will be very useful for some.

We have the same service in Rochdale

The Barlick surgery are still getting to grips with the application, there are a few bits they don't use yet.

I just drop my repeat prescription in at the chemists and pick it up after three working days.....

Pluggy, it would be nice to get a bulletin on progress. How are you, are they getting on top of whatever dragged you down..... ?

Big Kev wrote: ↑17 Mar 2017, 22:17 The Barlick surgery are still getting to grips with the application, there are a few bits they don't use yet.

I have been asked to go into the surgery and complete a form for the access to my records

Big Kev wrote: ↑20 Mar 2017, 15:32

Big Kev wrote: ↑17 Mar 2017, 22:17 The Barlick surgery are still getting to grips with the application, there are a few bits they don't use yet.

I have been asked to go into the surgery and complete a form for the access to my records

Paperwork sorted, lets see what happens now.

I'm going to call in today to see the surgery staff about getting access to my records.
Later.... I called in and got the form and have filled it in, I shall drop it and the £10 cheque in tomorrow.
One thing I noted was that my NHS number is different than it was in 1993 so I have given them both. It was the fact that when I had my eye operations I realised that the records they had were from when I lived in Bacup that triggered me off. I alerted them then but have no evidence anything was done about it.

It struck me this morning that it was surprising that on a form requesting my digital medical records the surgery don't ask for my email address. I have attached a note saying so and provided the address.
Am I right in thinking that this seems to indicate that they haven't fully embraced the concept that some of their patients might be computer literate?

Medical Records is the third item within the Patient Access system. It was probably assumed that the first two (Repeat prescriptions & booking appointments) were already available to you via the internet. ie: you were already were in the system.
At Colne Health Centre you had to submit some extra paperwork to get onto this extended service.

You shouldn't be charged for online access to your records, but surgeries can charge for paper copies or access to originals. I think they have assumed that you are not computer literate!

Charging you for having access to your own information is the scam pioneered by Experian and other credit record companies.
Whenever I've emailed our surgery I never get a response. I know that surgeries often prefer fax over email between themselves and other surgeries and hospitals. I guess there has been too much failed IT in the NHS and too much worry about internet security.

Stanley wrote: ↑21 Mar 2017, 03:50 I'm going to call in today to see the surgery staff about getting access to my records.
Later.... I called in and got the form and have filled it in, I shall drop it and the £10 cheque in tomorrow.

Online access to your medical records is free Readme

Kev, you are of course quite right! All was revealed when I called in at the surgery today and found that I had been given the wrong form! If I hadn't commented on the lack of email address it wouldn't have been picked up, I would have been charged a tenner and found I had to go to the surgery for access! I have the correct form now and will attempt to hack into the system again tomorrow!

Stanley wrote: ↑22 Mar 2017, 14:05 Kev, you are of course quite right! All was revealed when I called in at the surgery today and found that I had been given the wrong form! If I hadn't commented on the lack of email address it wouldn't have been picked up, I would have been charged a tenner and found I had to go to the surgery for access! I have the correct form now and will attempt to hack into the system again tomorrow!

Good stuff, Wendy was on the case too

I missed your reply Wendy. Sorry. You were spot on.

Do they note on records complaining hyperchondriac who doesn't take his medication when he is really ill (I'm frightened to look at my records I was supposed to have a lung function test but had three loads of colds since late Nov the latest wont shift (the wife has it too, which is really unusual for her)

I'm taking this as the last word in Booze research. From Cambridge, and fits my lifestyle. smile:

"The results, in the British Medical Journal, showed adults who drank no alcohol were 32 per cent more likely than moderate drinkers to have a heart attack.
They were 56 per cent more at risk of fatal heart disease, had a 24 per cent higher risk of heart failure and were 56 per cent more likely to die of coronary heart disease."

I suppose one of the 56% is a bit surplus. If you die of a heart attack to the best of my knowledge it is generally fatal.!!!!
A bit of an overkill with the statistics I think.

Yes - of course you're right. Just cut and paste from somewhere, in good faith.

Here's the full BMJ article. BMJ booze study.

I suppose that if the risk of death from those causes ( I presume has eliminated other factors ), is say 1 in 20 probability, then an increased risk takes it to about a 1 in 14 probability ? Does the study look at total volume of drink of all kinds consumed (water, tea, cola, etc ?)

Does the study show if it is mineral contents in alcoholic drinks ? ( does the study include imbimbing neat methelayted spirit ? (less the colour and taste chemicals added ?) I presume normally moderate qtys of alcohol widen the blood vessels and increase blood flow and slightly lower blood pressure ? Is the risk of death from being in an alcoholic state mentioned and compared - anything from driving, walking, fighting, falling down stairs (at least one of my neighbours died from this so never reached the age heart problems may kick in ?)
An interesting difference generally might be a classification by ethnic type, Indian persons in GB diet seem to have a greater risk of diabetes for example, and are middle-eastern and afro-caribean and japanese ethnic groups showing differences ?
I wonder if alcohol lowers the 'stress' hormones etc in the body which weaken heart muscle ?

Listening to the radio report on the booze study I was reminded of the old saying; "Everything I enjoy is illegal, immoral or fattening". Stanley's advice is live a moderate life and watch the food labels!
I now have access to my (abbreviated) medical records. They only go back to an odd reference to 1973 and 1975, but I expected nothing better. This does mean that my Brucellosis isn't noted. No big surprises but two good outcomes.... I was under Angela Hare's care for a while and in a letter to a consultant when I had a hydrocele on my right knacker she noted me as "a very pleasant 63 year old gentleman who is fit for his age". Nice!! The other useful thing is that it reminds me that it is ten years since I had a tetanus booster, must arrange one..... Oh, and my army immunisations and vaccinations from 1954 are noted!

Plaques, fatal heart disease and coronary heart disease are not the same thing. The latter refers to deaths due to disease of the coronary arteries circling the heart; the former would refer to deaths due to disease of all parts of the heart but I think the writer meant `fatal cardiovascular disease' which is the phrase used in the BMJ paper and which refers to the heart and blood vessels in general (`fatal heart disease' doesn't appear in the paper).

Whippy, the study wasn't intended to look at the issues raised by your questions. It was a retrospective study of electronic health records covering primary care, hospital admissions, and mortality in 1997-2010. It's strength is the number of participants, nearly 2 million. The authors admit some weaknesses in the study but they would have been difficult if not impossible to avoid. No study can be perfect.

I don't want to throw cold water on the results - I like a glass of wine too! But I fear that the public now has an incorrect interpretation of the phrase `moderate drinking'. Most people under-estimate how many units of alcohol they drink, often thinking that a glass is one unit. That misconception comes from the origin of the `unit of alcohol'. Back in the days of weaker wines one unit was based on the amount of alcohol in one 125ml glass of German wine of 8.5% alcohol strength. Yes, 8.5%, and most wines are now at least 13% alcohol (50% more). And most wine glasses are a lot more than 125ml. Bars, pubs and restaurants now have a `small' serving of 175ml (40% increase) or `large' of 250ml (100% increase and a third of a bottle of wine). So most glasses of wine would now have the following number of units of alcohol: 125ml with 1.5 units, 175ml with 2.1 units, 250ml with 3 units, and a bottle has 9 units in total.

So the bottom line is: you can enjoy your wine and stay within the safe limits!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is great news from British scientists...
`British scientists in world-first TB breakthrough' LINK
"British scientists have made a world-first breakthrough in the diagnosis of tuberculosis. Researchers in Oxford and Birmingham say they can isolate different strains of the disease using a process called genome sequencing. It means patients who may have waited months to get the right drugs can now be diagnosed in just a few days - so they have a greater chance of recovery. Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said the breakthrough "will save lives". Cases of TB in the UK have begun falling recently, but England still has one of the highest rates in Europe. The scientists who made the discovery say genome sequencing allows them to identify the DNA of different samples in little more than a week."

(One of the researchers told the Today programme this morning that they'd soon be able to do the diagnosis in hours.)

We will all live forever Tiz.......