This site is intended for health professionals only

Friday, 3 September 2010

Login: Register | Forgotten password

Newsletter sign up

E-mail sign-up
-

Advertisement

-

Advertisement

-

Advertisement

-

Advertisement

-

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Main Page Content:

Long-awaited report reveals 'insoluble' flaws in Summary Care Record rollout

17 Jun 10

A major investigation into the roll-out of the Summary Care Record published today has concluded the use of electronic records is low and the benefits have been exaggerated.

The long-awaited report found records did not reduce consultation times or increase patient safety and were rarely accessed in secondary care.

The three-year independent evaluation from University College London researchers was shelved by the previous Government until after the election and lists a myriad of ‘insoluble’ problems with the scheme.

It says the scheme had a ‘rare but important’ impact on medication errors, but records contained inaccuracies such as incomplete medication lists or missing allergies which clinicians had to compensate for.

It said progress had been delayed by ‘wicked’ - pervasive or insoluble – problems, including the difficulty of ensuring GP records were up-to-date and accurate.

The benefits anticipated for Summary Care Records and the associated Healthspace project could only be achieved ‘at high cost and enormous effort’ the report concludes.

Last week the government announced a review of the national roll-out of Summary Care Records.

It had previously pledged to keep the system, in spite of both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats promising to do away with it while they were in opposition.

The report concluded:

  • Summary Care Records are not widely available and when they are, clinicians do not always access them
  • As of March 1st 2010, fewer than 30 Summary Care Records were being accessed in secondary care settings per week nationwide
  • Summary Care Records did not reduce consultation times or increase patient safety but had a ‘rare but important’ impact on medication errors
  • People using Healthspace perceived few if any benefits from it

Lead author Professor Trisha Greenhalgh, now professor of primary health care at Queen Mary´s University of London said: ´This research shows that the significant benefits anticipated for these programmes have, by and large, yet to be realised.

‘When we did find them, they were subtle, hard to articulate and difficult to isolate.´

GPC chair, Dr Laurence Buckman said the investigation had uncovered some very serious issues.

‘It should not have been rolled out ahead of the findings of this evaluation,’ he said.

Last week, LMC representatives supported a motion calling for the BMA to 'formally and publicly abandon its acceptance of an "opt out" system' earlier this month.

Readers' comments

  • Peter Matthews | 17 Jun 10

    It was fairly obvious from the start of this reckless project that the records must be complete and accurate if they are to have any benefit and that will require a lot of care by the patient's own surgery because now one else can manage it, but the surgery will gain no real benefit. If someone in secondary care, who has no knowledge of the patient, relies on the accuracy of the record or fails to identify the correct patient and mistreats them, will that benefit the patient and who's fault will it be? Given the huge size of the database will it ever be reliable?

  • ANDREW GRAY | 17 Jun 10

    With such weak evidence of health benefits, one has to wonder what other non-health related benefits are being sought. Is this being driven by the Security services or the Border agency? Who stands to gain, because clearly doctors and their patients don't seem to.

  • mark mccartney | 18 Jun 10

    The driver for the SCR in England has been access for other providers, mainly the private sector - it has not been about patient safety. We now have good evidence that there is no cost benefit to this. The costs and other ramifications (of going ahead) are huge. Many records have already been created without appropriate consent and they should be destroyed or blocked until consent is obtained. When the government see how many people will not be providing consent, they will realise that the proposed system is not workable. Hopefully we can then start looking at other cheaper and more acceptable solutions for sharing information.


Post and bookmark this story at the following sites:What is this?

Post your comment

You must fill in all fields marked *

17 Jun 10

You must be logged in to add a comment

 

Main site navigation:
Secondary site navigation:
Main site navigation end
-

Advertisement

-

Advertisement

-

Advertisement

-

Advertisement

-

Advertisement

-

Advertisement

-
 
-
Abacus E-media
Abacus e-Media
St. Andrews Court
St. Michaels Road
Portsmouth
PO1 2JH
-

Advertisement