在6ThJuly, the publication of two separate reports into data sharing practices in UK led to the closure ofCare.Data这是政府制定的一项计划，旨在提供一个全国范围的数据库，该数据库将不同医疗机构的健康和社会护理信息联系起来。
我们最近概述BMC医学评论。However, in the wake of this closure, the government has stated it remains committed to realising the benefits of improved data sharing, and therefore the challenges and opportunities we outline remain pertinent to the on-going conversations surrounding the future of real-world data in the UK.
这第一报告由护理质量委员会（CQC）完成，提供了几项建议，以改善NHS广度的数据安全标准。确实，正如我们文章中讨论的那样，隐私担心从一开始就负担了Care.data计划。担心以数据泄露的风险为中心，包括由匿名或伪fronymist的匿名或伪施用数据产生的问题。
这CQC’s recommendations for security provisions around NHS data sharing practices may go some way to allaying fears, although adequately addressing privacy concerns will continue to reflect a key obstacle for any future real-world national dataset in the UK.
在her report，，，，The National Data Guardian, Fiona Caldicott also addressed this issue, arguing an open dialogue with patients and health care professionals must be maintained to adequately communicate risks and acknowledge ongoing fears.
这场对话还将重点介绍新的退出模型的实施，在该模型中，将有机会选择其数据是否在直接护理之外共享。在我们的文章中，我们强调了保持退出与选择加入方法的重大好处。
有望越来越多的公众参与与同意模型的参与度，以减少选择退出的数量，正如我们所讨论的那样，这有可能实质上影响任何后续数据库的价值。
Making a UK national medical records database work
现实世界中的数据对于医疗保健决策变得越来越重要。涵盖整个护理途径的国家医疗记录数据库有可能对疾病流行病学以及理解治疗安全和有效性问题提供深刻的见解。反过来，这可以指导整个NHS的更有效的服务调试。
Ultimately, better communication of the benefits and risks associated with data sharing on the scale intended by the now defunct care.data programme seems key. We know that adequately framing arguments around privacy concerns can lead to more positive attitudes, and that the more people know about how these data are used, the more accepting they are of data sharing.
的确，北欧国家继续表明，可以取得巨大成功实施国家强制性健康登记处。正如使用临床实践研究Datalink所表明的工作一样，这种类型的真实数据有可能在医学研究中取得重要的进步。
Effective communication and patient engagement will therefore be essential for the mistakes of care.data not to be repeated, and for the NHS and its patient community to reap the rewards of wide-scale data sharing.
出于特定目的共享相关信息（例如，髋关节置换）共享相关信息，共享信息（或使整个记录可用）之间存在巨大的困惑（例如，不良的联合护理模型 - 重要的是，重要的是重要的是，重要的是重要的是重要的是重要的是重要的是重要的是重要的是重要的是重要的是重要的是重要的是重要的是重要的是重要的是重要的是重要的是重要的是重要的是重要的是重要的是重要的是重要的是重要的是，重要的是重要的是，重要的是重要的是The information is up to date, so needs a ‘look-up’ function) and the care.data model which was never intended to be either related to direct care or be anything other than gaining access to cradle-to-grave records going back to 1948 and possibly further.
乔治·弗里曼（George Freeman）在接受评论时很明确：删除1型选择，这意味着可以废除护理数据计划：该品牌是有毒的，并且由于审查支持了删除患者的权力，以反对反对者将他们的病历上传到HSCIC，不必要。
Identifiable – and annonymised – data is and always has been needed for managing the NHS and for research: how does this relate to the data-rape of uploading all medical records in their entirety to HSCIC and accepting the assurances of The Powers That Be that your confidentiality won’t be at risk?
Patients and the public were reassured as recently as September 2013 (by the Secretary of State for Health, no less) that if they didn’ want their identifiable information uploaded to HSCIC, all they had to do was to tell their GP and their wishes would be respected.
A week may be a long time in politics, but medical records may extend over 100 years..
But Care.Data was about selling medical records to companies.
这与研究无关，这是公关封面的故事。