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

All practices must enter flu jab data manually from now on

GP practices have been told they will have to submit flu immunisations data manually for the rest of the year in order to get paid, after NHS chiefs decided to abandon attempts at automated collections.

Following a ‘range of technical issues’, the Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) said it had been advised by NHS England not to carry out any further automated collections of seasonal flu vaccination data from any practice for ‘the remainder of this financial year’.

In addition, practices using EMIS and TPP IT systems will need to enter their pneumococcal vaccination data manually, while EMIS practices will have to do this for both routine and catch-up shingles immunisation data.

The move comes after many practices were made to review and submit flu and pneumococcal data manually over Christmas, because of missing data and payment miscalculations by the CQRS.

The HSCIC said in a statement to Pulse that the the problems ’have largely been the result of a number of different issues with different GP suppliers’ and that ’while many of these problems have since been fixed, we want to fully investigate the situation before we re-run a collection’.

The statement added: ’We have asked practices to manually enter data until the end of March 2016, to reduce impact on users and to give us time to work through the issues. This also ensures that users can be confident that their data has been entered and that payments can be calculated.

’This decision was taken in conjunction with user representatives and NHS England. We recognise and apologise for the inconvenience this may cause.’

The GPC said the situation was ‘unacceptable’ and NHS managers needed to ‘get a grip’ of the data collection processes.

Dr Richard Vautrey, deputy chair of the GPC, said: ‘NHS England and the HSCIC really do need to get a grip on this situation as the repeated failure of the CQRS is completely unacceptable and is adding yet more unnecessary workload on to hard pressed practices.’

Readers' comments (9)

  • Most practices hate CQRS. They end up having to run their own searches to check that they are not being ripped off anyway. Then they have to spend hours trying to work out why the data looks diferent to what was expected. Finally they are told that there is a problem with CQRS having wasted their time.
    I expect practices will prefer to make manual submissions forever more unless HSCIC can get its act together. It is not good enough to blame the IT companies alone. The taxpayer pays many millions to companies like EMIS and HSCIC has failed to ensure good value for that money.
    We have a stupid, meaningless, pointless, politically motivated requirement to have "named responsible GP's."

    Who is the named responsible person for this debarcle eh?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Nothing ever works: CQRS, SCR, EPS. Isnt it time to end this obsession with data collection and spend the money on patient care instead. Someone at the top must have their snout in the trough

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Great, thanks.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Marvellous. Another job for the list. Expletive expletive.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • FUBAR.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Agree with 6.27PM Jan 15th - IT progress is now backwards and nothing large scale seems to work reliably. I'm afraid patient care and safety have been compromised as well. The frustration is incredibly destructive and corrosive for job satisfaction. This is not about laggards not keeping up with the times - its a tool that just does not work as provided/enforced on us.
    Anybody for going back to FP7 cards and manual records???

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • When CQRS was introduced the local consensus was that it stood for Calculations Questionable, Rarely Straightforward - and so it has been proved!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What happened last flu season (I'm retired) for flu, pneumococcal and shingles vaccinations? i.e. is this a new or an ongoing problem?
    Where does the problem lie? in the specifications, the Business Rules given to GP suppliers, the queries written by the suppliers for their systems, the data extraction (GPES), the communication between GPES and CQRS or in CQRS itself?

    The whole situation seems very peculiar: different IT systems are affected differently - all affected for seasonal flu (and childhood flu?), EMIS & TPP - but not, apparently INPS and Microtest - affected for pneumococcal vaccination, and only EMIS affected for shingles and shingle catch-up - but *all* problems can be resolved by entering data straight into CQRS - bypassing all the steps in data extraction via GPES!
    How about a bit of transparency? If the problem lies with the Business Rules - or GPES - or the communications between GPES & CQRS - what is the probability that other data collections relating to practice performance and payment - or future collections such as the "single national GP data extract" (or will be possible or won't contain equally detrimental flaws?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I would like Pulse Today to ask HSCIC who is personally repsonsible. It would be a fairly straightforward bit of journalism. I am personally accountable for all of my actions but it seems nobody from NHS England or its quangos is ever named. Billions of pounds have been wasted on failed NHS IT projects. They changed the name from NPFIT to HSCIC but I bet all the same people work there.
    Why don't they have a performer's list for all people working in the NHS? Why is it only GP's who are scrutinised and monitored whilst others spend entire careers blundering around in a system where they are unchecked and unaccountable?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say