The Conservatives have promised huge cost savings for the NHS by scrapping government plans for a central database of patient records.
Proposals include electronic medical notes being stored locally by GPs and hospitals and patients having online access to their medical records.
IT firms such as Google or Microsoft could host the information.
But the government said the Conservatives’ plans raised concerns about patient confidentiality.
The Tories are promising NHS trusts a choice of computer systems, rather than having a single one imposed.
Every patient would have a username and password and could update their records with information like blood pressure and cholesterol levels.
Behind schedule
Shadow health minister Stephen O’Brien told BBC Radio 4′s Today programme: "We want to give patients the ability to give themselves greater control over their information."
He added: "If we hold the data locally it’s more likely to be protected than within this massive [NHS] database…
"There’s always a need to protect data, whether it’s in the public or private sector.
"What has to happen is to focus on patients’ health and improve their outcomes."
The £12bn NHS programme in England – the world’s largest civilian IT scheme – has been dogged by problems since its launch in 2002.
It aims to replace hundreds of different computer systems in hospitals and GP practices with compatible versions which allow staff to access patients’ medical records.
"NHS IT will only succeed in improving patient care if information is held locally and centred on the patient"
Dr Glyn Hayes
It is thought the project is five years behind schedule.
Although some parts have been implemented successfully, there have been problems in upgrading computer systems in hospitals and setting up the electronic patient record.
The Tories say contracts in place with IT service providers – two out of four of whom have already pulled out – should be brought to a halt and renegotiated to "prevent further inefficiencies".
But Health Minister Ann Keen said: "The Tories need to make it very clear how their plans will ensure patient confidentiality.
"We have already set out our plans to give patients greater access to health information, for example through Healthspace where patients can see their summary care record."
A Department of Health spokesman said: "Patients are now directly benefiting from the modernisation of NHS IT – including being able to make their first outpatient appointment through Choose and Book, new digital images and a new electronic prescriptions service."
He added that the programme was already being delivered locally, with "detailed care records" continuing to be held in an electronic form.
The government has made it clear to the companies contracted to deliver the upgrades that it expects further significant progress by the end of November, he said.
This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.
Swine flu: have backbone, carry on
On the NHS website, pregnant women are advised to “avoid unnecessary travel”, while the Observer concentrates on yet more extreme counsel: that women should think about avoiding conception until the pandemic is over. That was issued by Belinda Phipps, the chief executive of the National Childbirth Trust; before you run away with it, consider that it was immediately disputed by Professor Steve Field, chairman of the Royal College of GPs.
I am loth to be too strident, when there is clearly insufficient information, and equally clearly, pregnant women are at more risk than most.
The fact of having a compromised immune system – being thereby more likely to contract disease and slower to fight it off – is something most pregnant women grudgingly accept with the heft and hassle of it all. But other factors are more worrying: the possibility of miscarriage; premature labour; birth defects. Two of the 29 fatalities so far have been mothers who had just had their babies.
What strikes me is how typical it all is of advice to the pregnant, culminating in this beautifully meaningless line from the Department of Health: “We advise everybody to plan their pregnancy carefully but we are not advising women not to conceive”. Plan carefully for what, then? The weather? The social season? It all manages to be incredibly, uselessly vague, while at the same time, panic-inducingly severe.
What counts as “unnecessary”, in travel? Work? Or just parties? What’s a crowd, just the tube, or also a bus? If you shouldn’t be at work, should you even be dropping your other kids off at school? Children, for that matter, are hatcheries for viral illness, is there some way to get rid of them altogether?
For those who aren’t pregnant (on which well done, by the way), how long should you delay? The length of the entire pandemic, which could be two years? Or just until it’s out of the headlines? If you’re undergoing fertility treatment, should you stop? If you’re over 35, should you take your chances?
I think we could all cope with uncertainties if they weren’t underpinned by the constant message, tacit and spoken, that if you were just careful enough, deployed just common sense enough, abnegated your own convenience just enough, then congratulations, Madam, you and your lucky baby will be OK.
The truth is very different: the world can’t just end: perhaps some people can stay off work but you wouldn’t get sick pay for the entire gestation; besides which, you can’t preventatively avoid your existing offspring, you wouldn’t even want to avoid them if they had swine flu, you’d more likely want to look after them; you can’t unimpregnate yourself. All you can do is have some backbone and carry on. And that, by coincidence, is what these advisory bodies lack – backbone. They should admit the limits of their own knowledge, and stop this charade that everything’s under control, if only women would act responsibly.