Government bans NHS fax use

Experts disagree on NHS use of legacy communications technology

The government is set to ban the NHS from buying fax machines from January 2019 in the hopes that a new safer and more secure system will be adopted.

The NHS has been told it will have to phase out its fax machines entirely by December 2020. The Department of Health stated that more modern communication such as email was needed because patients personal information is at risk.

Andrew Bruce, Head of Operations and Delivery at SQS disgareed with the policy.

"It may seem like a sensible move but, it's vital that replacement means of communication is reliable and secure."

He also stated that if the new system is not user friendly it will simply not be used in favour of third party applications such as Snapchat and Whatsapp which may be even less secure than fax.

Bruce added that users should be involved in technology projects.

"To combat workarounds, clinicians and other staff who will be using the technology must be involved from the very early stages, so that any solution - whether it is a new document management system or AI-enabled diagnostics - is fit for purpouse and bulit specifically to fit their needs.

"The challenge with any public sector technology project is that it is funded by public money, and understandably under scrutiny. So the priority of any project must be ensuring solutuions will work for the people using them every day."

However, Rebecca McIntyre, a cognitive behavioral phsycologist stated that fax machines are "a continued risk." She said: "We constantly recieve faxes meants for other places but this is never reported."

The BBC reported that one GP practice currently relies on fax for X-rays from nearby hospitals because of an ongoing problem with their system.

Earlier this year Computing reported that NHS Digital was set to ignore the IT security recommendations of its own chief information officer, Will Smart, citing the estimated cost of between £800 million and £1 billion. It claims that the investment would not be "value for money".