Unvaccinated children would be barred from childcare in NSW under new proposals

Parents who oppose vaccinations on conscientious grounds won’t allowed to enrol their children at New South Wales childcare centres under legislation to be introduced by the state opposition.

Labor leader Luke Foley announced the policy on Sunday and said the legislation, set to be introduced this week, would plug the loophole which had allowed specialist anti-vaccination childcare centres to be set up.

The changes won’t affect children who can’t be vaccinated for medical reasons, such as a specialised cancer treatment.

“We need to be encouraging vaccinations not discouraging them,” Foley said in a statement.

“Vaccinations are the only way to protect against serious diseases like polio, mumps, whooping cough, meningococcal, diphtheria and tetanus.”

Foley said his plan would also cover family day care operations.

The announcement comes after an unvaccinated NSW girl was diagnosed with tetanus earlier this month. It’s believed the seven-year-old picked up the disease through an open wound on her foot while playing in the garden of her northern NSW home.

The case prompted renewed debate in the north coast region, which has some of the lowest immunisation rates in Australia.

Unvaccinated children would be barred from childcare in NSW under new proposals

NHS plans could bring benefits but we"re barred from telling the public

I work in programme management in the NHS for a commissioning support unit: we support GPs’ clinical commissioning groups and other organisations on matters such as finance, IT, service transformation and change management. Recently I’ve been supporting our local system to develop a sustainability and transformation plan (STP) – bringing NHS bodies together with councils and community providers, and producing a five-year plan to improve care and find the very ambitious savings required of us.

The benefits of STPs could be huge. The whole system is short of money, and we have a growing and ageing population with increasingly complex needs. To have any chance of sorting this out, we must bring health and social care services together – and STPs have sparked some real collaboration. People who have been plugging away at different aspects of the same problem for years are now working together, and there’s huge enthusiasm.

We had a difficult start, though, because NHS England made up the policy on the hoof. Late last year, work had started across England on initial plans: by April, we were to submit plans to transform and connect the IT of NHS and social care bodies within our “footprint” areas. Then at Christmas, we were suddenly asked to produce an STP by June.

There was no clarity about how STPs were to line up with the initial plans, and in some areas their footprints aren’t coterminous – which is daft. NHS England’s guidance was fragmented, emerging in bursts while we worked, often leaving us little time to respond to new requests. Still, we hit the deadline, expecting a written response in July; but as of late August, we haven’t heard back. NHS England are constantly telling us to work “at pace and at scale”. It would be helpful if they worked at the pace that they expect of us.

A second big challenge with STPs is their lack of a formal structure or leadership. Volunteer chief executives lead STPs alongside their day jobs, and the organisations involved report to their own boards – which have a legal responsibility to protect their own bottom lines. Plans that are good for the whole system can lead to individual organisations losing income, which may put boards in conflict with STP ambitions. The government should create formal structures that will enable STPs to appoint full-time leaders, make the necessary strategic decisions and, crucially, move money around the system to where it’s needed.

System-wide reforms may also involve controversial changes such as closing A&E departments. It’s an NHS England requirement that there’s strong public and patient engagement before these decisions are finalised: when we don’t get people’s buy-in, the result is protests, judicial reviews – and delays that we can’t afford.

We need to start consulting on our plans, having an open conversation with the public. But NHS England tells us that we can’t publish our STPs – presumably because it’s worried about negative headlines. I think we have a duty to tell the public about the plans, and NHS England says we must move “at pace”; yet we’re barred from explaining our plans. That’s a problem.

STPs are helpful in driving collaboration; in integrating health and social care; in creating a climate for change. But they need the right management structure to make system-wide decisions, along with the freedom to publish and consult as they see fit. I’d like to hear much stronger signals from NHS England that they’re committed to this model; that it won’t be swept away in yet another round of top-down reforms. Then people will recognise that this is for real, and commit themselves to the agenda – and we’ll be able to use reforms to make the savings asked of us, even as we improve services for patients.

If you would like to write a blogpost for Views from the NHS frontline, read our guidelines and get in touch by emailing sarah.johnson@theguardian.com.

Do you work in the NHS? Please take our survey and tell us whether bullying is a problem and how it affects your work

Join the Healthcare Professionals Network to read more pieces like this. And follow us on Twitter (@GdnHealthcare) to keep up with the latest healthcare news and views.

NHS plans could bring benefits but we"re barred from telling the public

NHS legally barred from marketing patient information for commercial use

The revelation came days after controversial programs to extract patient information from GP information were put on hold, amid concerns above the scheme.

In a bid to allay public considerations Mr Hunt will this week announce a series of amendments to the Care Bill.

A source shut to Mr Hunt mentioned: “The ideas around this programme, which will deliver true positive aspects to sufferers, are fundamentally proper, and we will assistance them.

“But alongside a new campaign from NHS England to clarify the programme to the public and GPs, we also need to make certain that robust legislation is in place to deal with their worries.”

These in charge of the NHS information programme have repeatedly insisted that it will be unlawful for information extracted from GP files to be offered to insurers, who may possibly seek to target clients or put up their prices.

Even so, The Telegraph disclosed on Monday that in 2012 the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries obtained the information about 47million patients for about £2,220. It utilized the data to support “refine” essential illness cover.

In response the government will this week enshrine in law a ban on the Well being and Social Care Details Centre, the physique in charge of NHS data, from releasing the information for commercial purposes.

The new legislation will also introduce new measures deter organisations which obtain NHS information from misusing it.

Below the information safety act, businesses which “reckless disclose” individual information are committing a criminal offence can be fined up to £500,000.

Nevertheless, MPs have raised concerns that the fines are “small change” to global firms and will do small to deter wrongdoing.

Beneath the new laws, NHS information will only be launched to organisations which have abided by data safety guidelines.

Those that have committed even one particular prior offence involving patient data will be barred from accessing NHS health-related data indefinitely as part of a “one strike and you are out” technique.

Firms that wish to use personalized health care data will have to demonstrate that they are performing so on an “ethical basis” which will benefit individuals that they will not breach their privacy.

A supply close to the Department of Overall health explained: “For some organisations, the risk of no longer being able to access this type of information may possibly show a far more powerful sanction than the existing optimum £500,000 fine beneath data safety.”

Ministers will also introduce into law a legal necessity that the wishes of individuals who want to opt out of the NHS database are “respected”.

People that pick not to participate will be ready to opt out above the phone and obtain a legally-backed assurance that “no identifiable information” about them will enter the database.

The two bodies which advise the government on releasing info will also be provided a legal basis to make them a lot more accountable.

They will have to publish details about which organisations have acquired NHS information and the justification for the selection.

On Thursday Jane Ellison, the well being minister, stated that the new measures were necessary to restore “public confidence”.

She explained that the use of NHS data had assisted alert authorities to the scandal at Mid Staffordshire hospital and would aid doctors fight antibiotic resistant superbugs.

She explained: “It is clear that most folks agree with the aims, but they have justifiable considerations about how they are getting implemented.

“People want rights in excess of how their health and care data, particularly data that recognize them, are getting utilised. Safeguards will be put in location more than and above what NHS England does to create public self confidence.

“We know there is an tremendous prize in our grasp, but we know we will win that prize only if we are extremely careful and thoughtful about how to proceed, taking the public with us.”

Several of the measure ministers are adopting have been proposed by George Freeman, a Conservative MP who previously worked in the biomedical business.

Ministers are also expected to adopt numerous measures he has put forward in a personal members bill to help empower sufferers.

They include scrapping fees charged by some doctors for individuals to access their own medical information, and creating a duty for hospitals and GPs to share medical data with each and every other to make sure “joined up” patient care.

Mr Freeman explained: “Without information we wouldn’t have found Mid Staffs or Harold Shipman. While some of the objections to the NHS’s plans for use of information are ill-founded and irresponsible, there are legitimate public and GP issues which need to have to be addressed if we are to be capable to secure public support for ‘opt-out’ which is essential.

“I am delighted that the government has accepted the measures in my Bill, and our wider campaign, and agreed to adopt them in legislation”

* The head of the NHS has apologised for posting a spoof video mocking the beneath-fire well being support data-sharing task and lampooning Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt.

Sir David Nicholson was forced to say sorry to a senior colleague portrayed as Hitler in the newest of a prolonged historical past of world wide web parodies based on a scene from the film Downfall.

“Sorry this is what takes place when you give an outdated bloke with an over designed sense of humour new tech,” he told Tim Kelsey, national director for patients and information.

“You are undertaking a excellent occupation X”, he extra on Twitter, in which he had earlier produced a substantial stir by posting a website link to the clip – subsequently deleted from his account.

Titled “Tim Kelsey discovers that care.data is in problems”, the video has had a lot more than 3,000 hits given that it was posted to YouTube earlier this week.

In it, the subtitled words of the actor enjoying Hitler – recognized as Mr Kelsey – state that the task has “often been about generating income”.

“Who cares about ordinary folks, they never recognize issues,” it shows him saying.

“They never have my vision for a much better globe”

It attacks “scaremongering” information privacy campaigners and has him saying: “Men and women did not care when we offered off their NHS, they barely blinked”

At one particular level he is proven suggesting almost everything is Ok because “Jeremy Hunt is correct behind us”.

But he is then informed: “Jeremy Hunt is hiding behind a tree. The Government is saying practically nothing. They are all hiding behind trees.”

Responding on the social media site, Mr Kelsey mentioned: “My view on the YouTube film: funny but we chance underestimating how important data-sharing is for the NHS. Hitler was not a joke.”

NHS legally barred from marketing patient information for commercial use