We need timely access to mental health data: implications of the Goldacre review

Duncan E Astle*, Anna Moore, Louise Marryat, Essi Viding, Karen L Mansfield, Mina Fazel, Matthias Pierce, Kathryn M Abel, Jonathan Green, Ann John, Matthew R Broome, Rachel Upthegrove, Helen Bould, Helen Minnis, Ruchika Gajwani, Madeleine J Groom, Chris Hollis, Elizabeth Liddle, Kapil Sayal, Vashti BerryStephan Collishaw, Helen Dawes, Samuele Cortese, Mara Violato, Jack Pollard, James H MacCabe, Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, Emily Simonoff, Edward Watkins, Rachel M Hiller, Ellen Townsend, Cherie Armour, John R Geddes, Lucy Thompson, Matthias Schwannauer, Dasha Nicholls, Matthew Hotopf, Johnny Downs, Atif Rahman, Aditya Narain Sharma, Tamsin J Ford

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debatepeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

The Goldacre review, published in April, 2022, is a landmark evaluation of the use, availability, and safety of National Health Service (NHS) data across all four nations of the UK. The review underscores the necessary role of data in driving health-care improvement and innovation, and the potential risks inherent in using data routinely contributed by health service users. The review recommends a radical overhaul in NHS data curation, access, and analysis, and, crucially, argues that substantial new resources must be marshalled to make this aspiration a reality.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)242-244
Number of pages3
JournalThe Lancet Psychiatry
Volume10
Issue number4
Early online date15 Mar 2023
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2023

Keywords

  • Mental Health
  • Health Services Accessibility
  • Mental Health Services
  • Humans

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'We need timely access to mental health data: implications of the Goldacre review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this