This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

pul jul aug2020 cover 80x101px
Read the latest issue online

Independents' Day

GPs miss out on 'critical' correspondence for five years due to support service error

GPs have been missing out on correspondence dating back to 2011 due to errors made by NHS Shared Business Services in redirecting and forwarding correspondence sent to the wrong practice by hospitals, the health secretary has announced.

The NHS has said it will write to the affected GPs in the three affected areas of North East London, the East Midlands and South West of England, where the company was contracted to provide primary care support services until April 2016.

It said this would include ’results and communications about treatment steps’.

NHS England confirmed that there would be a ‘small number of cases’ where GPs would have to follow up with patients about their care where correspondence was delayed, with Pulse understanding that potentially up to 100 patients will need action. 

The mail redirection service was commissioned by NHS England to trace patient correspondence which had initially been sent by hospitals to an incorrect, or out-of-date, GP practice.

NHS England told Pulse NHS SBS had launched its internal investigation in January 2016, and notified the DH and NHS England in March, the errors were revealed in a statement released by Jeremy Hunt to Parliament this morning.

In the statement, NHS SBS said: ‘[SBS] has identified an issue whereby some correspondence in the mail redirection service has not reached the intended recipients.’

It adds: ‘We would like to express our regret for this situation, and we are working with NHS England to return all delayed correspondence to GP practices for filing in medical records as quickly as possible.’

A ‘team including clinical experts’ is now working through the backlog to review and resend mail correctly, NHS England said.

But GP leaders warn that the delays could have ‘huge implications’ if a patient has not received follow up medical attention, with hospitals often sending a single letter directing GPs to care for a patient.

Doncaster LMCs medical secretary Dr Dean Eggitt said: ‘We often see a patient who has been seen in outpatients, or even post-acute surgery, they’re discharged with a note for “GP to continue some of the care”.

’That’s the only information we receive on what to do with this patient, whether critical or minor. So if that doesn’t come through we won’t do it.’

He added that these communications were ‘massively patient care critical’ because discharged patients might not always understand they should follow-up with a GP.

A spokesperson for NHS England told Pulse: ‘Early investigations have shown that this issue occurred between 2011 and 2016. Some correspondence forwarded to NHS SBS was not re-directed or forwarded to GP surgeries or linked to the medical record when the sender sent correspondence to the wrong GP or the patient changed practice.

’The correspondence included temporary resident forms, duplicate documents or some results and communications about treatment steps.’

It adds: ‘Relevant GPs are being notified so that in the small number of cases where it may be needed they can take steps to follow up with their patients.

The DH has a particular involvement with NHS SBS as the organisation is a joint venture between the department and private company ‘Sopra Steria’ with a mission to ‘deliver £1bn in savings back to the NHS by 2020’.

NHS England dropped mail redirection from primary care support services nationally in April, with Pulse revealing GPs’ concerns of a ‘clinical risk’ to patients over delayed correspondence once the service was stopped. 

Readers' comments (7)

  • So what happened to the un-redirected mail? It it sitting somewhere in a warehouse not forwarded?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Does JH think that this announcement will take the heat off Crapita and the huge cack-up they have made since the recent provider change?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Another private sector success!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • One can only assume the delivery of £1bn savings is to come from saved pension payments from the people adversely affected (killed) by this incompetence. Monumental failures of this type should ensure that the private companies are made bankrupt by the compensation to patients and the commissioning organisation.

    Unrealistically low bids should be punitively fined, and directors held to account, potentially corporate manslaughter where pathways have been delayed. Directors and major shareholders should be prevented from holding any similar office for 20 years. After all a clinician who made a major error would have their career finished by it, the same needs to apply to management in life impacting industries.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Compared to the fiasco of a service Capita are providing becomes fully exposed the above story will be smallfry and yes someone does need to be held to account but that includes the bureaucrats that that awarded the contract as well as Capita who came in low on bid to win the contract they cannot deliver - shame on both

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Not safe to use fax or email but relies on snail mail possibly the biggest for of blighted communication available to mankind, supported by the a holes running NHS administration. I cannot think of a more politically correct description. But yes pay them 6 figure sums of tax payers money.
    One may find their critical correspondence on the nail situated in their respective toilets..... You know the ones with the fur lined seats.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • We had one of these - patient needed to be seen in colposcopy after an abnormal screening smear. We had tried to chase the result to no avail. The result eventually arrived but the patient had long since left the practice and her mobile was not accepting calls.

    Of course, no-one at SBS et al. will be held responsible but if we had done this we certainly would have (and then some).

    It's no just about Capita. All of 'back office'/management seem to have power with no responsibility. They can mess up and then can move on with no come-back.

    Oh the joys of being in a regulated profession!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say