This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

NHS England to reclaim £260k from practices over lost GP correspondence

NHS England will reclaim approximately £260,000 from GP practices that it says did not review lost patient correspondence.

Speaking in front of the Public Accounts Committee yesterday, NHS England chief executive Simon Stevens and finance director Paul Bauman were questioned about the progress of the recovered patient records previously lost by NHS Shared Business Services.

Mr Stevens said that while GPs had responded effectively on the whole, they would be reclaiming 'all of the money' from those who had not checked records.

By this time last year, practices had been paid over £2.5m by NHS England to review and assess patient documentation that was lost in transit.

The MPs' questioning came after it was revealed that GPs had been missing out on clinical correspondence dating back to 2011, due to errors made by NHS SBS in forwarding and redirecting documents sent to the wrong practices by hospitals.

Despite the provider's contract ending in 2015, the issues were not revealed until July 2016, following the primary care support services being contracted out to Capita.

The five years of correspondence backlog was not helped by the new Capita contract, which did not include mail redirection services.

GPs were instead told to send any mistaken post back to the originator, although many documents were still sent to the private company, leading to an accumulation of almost 400,000 clinial letters.

Practices were told that they would be required to review and assess all the misplaced patient documentation, with the BMA negotiating that GPs would be paid in line with how much correspondance they sorted.

However during the accounts committee session, chair Meg Hillier stated that 'GPs received quite a lot of money from NHS England to do work that they didn’t always do, to check these records' and asked, 'are you going to try and get any of that money back?'

Mr Baumann responded that NHS England will reclaim 'all of the money from GPs who did not perform the function that they needed to perform for us'.

And Mr Stevens said: ‘We are reclaiming around £260,000’.

But he added: ‘I think GPs have responded effectively in the round.'

The heated session, which took place in the House of Commons yesterday, led to Ms Hillier stating: 'We’re not hammering GPs but you’re not answering the question', to which Mr Stevens responded: ‘Well I’m not joining in the hammering I guess and that’s what I’m being hammered for'.

As of 1 May, Capita will take over the task of sorting and redirecting mail which is mistakenly sent to them, a role which currently sits with the NHS England incidence team.

Mr Baumann said that a 'major communication campaign' will be launched to communicate both the nature of the service and the need for GPs and practice administrators to ensure that all incorrectly received documentation is directed back to the originator.

The finance director went on to say that following this, NHS England will 'generate statistics' in order to see where mistakes are still being made so they can 'be more targeted' in their approach.

This update follows a PAC report from November last year, which told NHS England to give GPs a March 2018 deadline to review the patient correspondence and report back.

The report found that by October of that year, 2,000 GPs had yet to confirm that they had reviewed 102,000 items, and accused NHS England of 'giving up' on finding out whether any patients had been harmed by the delays. 

The NHS SBS mail redirection blunder

Since 2015, 709,000 items of clinical correspondence were lost in transit between hospitals and GP practices - with a further 162,000 pieces unveiled in November. First uncovered in 2016, the issue affected areas including East Midlands, North of England, North East London and South West England.

When a patient changed practice the mail redirection service was intended to ensure continuity by redirecting correspondence returned by their old GP to the new one.

But the documents were instead stored in a warehouse and unearthed in 2015. This included temporary resident forms, patient test results and communications about treatment.

No cases of patient harm have been reported but, by November last year, it had cost £6.6m to find and assess correspondence, with NHS England estimating it would cost another £1m.

Readers' comments (7)

  • I sent back the confirmation slip but still got a second letter stating that I had not. I then sent another email reply. I wonder how many of the 2000 GPs have actually done the work but did not persist in ensuring that NHSE got the confirmation?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Oh good
    The punishments are going to continue..
    until morale improves.


    I agree.. practices will have done this, but have not been able to keep pace with the bizarre checking and confirmation system that came with it. I may not have completely satisfied the confirmation programme myself, but furthermore, based on the state of NHS buresucracy .. that fact is probably not the practices fault, as the NHSE/CAPITA machine is adept at not processing data and details sent to it.
    As a partnership with a new bank account, we are now 12 months into a monthly cycle of telling NHSE that we with to use account B, but nothing chages .. month after month the payments come in to account A which we were hoping to close

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is not surprising. I bet they will claw the money back a lot quicker than it was dished out

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I never wanted to do it - since it's non contractual it is NHSE problem to sort and employ people to do it

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If they claw back the money - then they have a duty (to the patient) to make sure that the initial problem is resolved?

    Is that not correct?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If these "confirmation slips" are the same ones I saw, they seem a medicolegal nightmare.

    I think I remember it was something like,
    "I confirm I have read the correspondence and the patient's medical records and can confirm that no harm resulted from the delay in receiving this information".

    That would require us to second guess every consultation or decision about that patient in the light of the information. An interesting intellectual challenge, but not something we can allow time for, to do it justice.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Moronic NHSE officials always manage to twist the problem to victimize GPs and cut more funding. These children of nobility have no idea of the real world and are there because of their infallible genes not qualifications. One of local Heads was recently quite cool in declaring that he had done a mutual transfer from the neighbouring County with the previous Head of services here. 5 years ago these same officials had transferred in the other direction. And these are 200k jobs !

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say