Dear all, Between 1987 and 1990 I spent a lot of time working with, what was by then called, the NHS Register. The discussion about computerising patient records had begun and I spent some time explaining the need for a unique identifier and pointing out that the current NHS Numbers would not work. (I will not give you're the technical details!). The 1939 Register was used as the basis for the NHS Register. The records were kept up to date because they showed which patient was allocated to which GP. When a patient died the GP was supposed to return their medical file and as a consequence would have their capitation fees reduced. (You might see a reason there why some of them did not report deaths.) If a patient died in hospital, or in other circumstances, the GP might not have known about the death and the patient would remain on their books until there was some kind of audit (a rare occurrence!). The level of inflation in capitation fees was estimated as being between 10% and 30%. No one would do anything about it for fear of upsetting the doctors. (When the NHS started someone asked how the doctors had been persuaded to join and was told by the politician in charge "We stopped their mouths with gold!") Linking death registrations to the register may have been attempted but it is fraught with problems. Deaths are often reported by people with little real knowledge of the deceased. (My grandfather registered the death of someone who had taken in grandma when her parents died and reported the age as 101. He would have had no idea of her age. She might have been about 80!) Doctors and care workers often know only what the person has told them and exaggerating you age is not uncommon. For married women there will be no clues to their birth name and lots of people change or misspell their own names. You only have to look at the census records to see how mangled a name can get when the recorder has only heard it and the speaker cannot read. My expectations of this new data set were pretty low. It might help you find A date of birth but I know all of my direct family ones for this period from Grandma's Birthday Book. Bear in mind that this set suffers from the transcription errors of the original recorders as well as those introduced by FMP. I hope this helps. DaveT In Sunny South Yorkshire

----- Original Message ----- From: "David via" <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2015 11:31 AM Subject: Re: [FHU] 1939 register > Dear all, > Between 1987 and 1990 I spent a lot of time working with, what was by then > called, the NHS Register. The discussion about computerising patient > records had begun and I spent some time explaining the need for a unique > identifier and pointing out that the current NHS Numbers would not work. > (I > will not give you're the technical details!). > > The 1939 Register was used as the basis for the NHS Register. The records > were kept up to date because they showed which patient was allocated to > which GP. When a patient died the GP was supposed to return their medical > file and as a consequence would have their capitation fees reduced. (You > might see a reason there why some of them did not report deaths.) If a > patient died in hospital, or in other circumstances, the GP might not have > known about the death and the patient would remain on their books until > there was some kind of audit (a rare occurrence!). The level of inflation > in capitation fees was estimated as being between 10% and 30%. No one > would > do anything about it for fear of upsetting the doctors. (When the NHS > started someone asked how the doctors had been persuaded to join and was > told by the politician in charge "We stopped their mouths with gold!") > > Linking death registrations to the register may have been attempted but it > is fraught with problems. Deaths are often reported by people with little > real knowledge of the deceased. (My grandfather registered the death of > someone who had taken in grandma when her parents died and reported the > age > as 101. He would have had no idea of her age. She might have been about > 80!) Doctors and care workers often know only what the person has told > them > and exaggerating you age is not uncommon. For married women there will be > no > clues to their birth name and lots of people change or misspell their own > names. You only have to look at the census records to see how mangled a > name can get when the recorder has only heard it and the speaker cannot > read. > > My expectations of this new data set were pretty low. It might help you > find A date of birth but I know all of my direct family ones for this > period > from Grandma's Birthday Book. Bear in mind that this set suffers from the > transcription errors of the original recorders as well as those introduced > by FMP. > > I hope this helps. > > DaveT > In Sunny South Yorkshire > > Excellent insights Dave. Thanks for posting that. Tony Proctor