Cookie policy notice

By continuing to use this site you agree to our cookies policy below:
Since 26 May 2011, the law now states that cookies on websites can ony be used with your specific consent. Cookies allow us to ensure that you enjoy the best browsing experience.

This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

NHS England to rebrand ‘toxic’ Summary Care Records

Summary Care Records may be rebranded due to the ‘toxicity’ around the future of the programme, said NHS England’s director of technology yesterday.

The records are to be renamed the ‘partial GP record’ as the NHS moves towards becoming paperless by 2015.

The rollout of the SCR programme has been plagued with problems, and the GPC IT lead called for the whole thing to be scrapped earlier this year because only a small proportion of records are being accessed and the current utilisation rate means each viewing to date has effectively cost an estimated £1,200.

But speaking at the E-Health Insider conference in Birmingham yesterday, NHS England’s director of strategic systems and technology, Beverley Bryant, said that in the ‘fullness of time’ SCRs may become redundant, but in the meantime they would be rebranded.

She said: ‘There has been a lot of toxicity and noise around the future of the SCR. It probably over promised in terms of what it was about. But the reality is that we have seen a better uptake of summary care records by secondary care clinicians, than in any of the five years prior to that.

‘And we’re potentially going to rename it our partial GP record. We think having access for our A&E, 111 and out-of-hours clinicians to that partial GP record, is a really important step to achieving integration.”

‘In the fullness of time, we may not need it, because we’ll already be able to, at a detailed level, transfer information across care systems. But until that time I would really encourage people to consider taking up the SCR, as a safe access to patient information.’

She said this was one of a number of objectives – new, or continued from the National IT Plan - which NHS England is working towards with the ultimate goal of ‘putting technology and information into the hands of patients’.

She added: ‘We do it with banking, but we’re not there with the NHS and we need to make it easier. We will not be dictating to our patients and carers, the way in which we correspond with them. If they want and email, they want a text, we need to offer that. But if they want paper, want a letter, we need to offer that equally.’

Other major objectives include updating Choose and Book, re-evaluating the IT operating model for GPs and doing more to develop e-prescribing.

 

Readers' comments (7)

  • First it was Summary Care Record (SCR)
    Then Emergency Care Summary (ECS)
    Now Partial GP record (PGR)

    You can't turn a pig's ear into a silk purse just by changing its name.

    Abandon Summary Care Records, just as the GPC said, and invest that time, effort and money into systems that already exist and where IF records are shared (with explicit consent), WHAT is shared, and to WHOM, remains under the control of the GP and the patient.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I think it should be called the Partial Record (PR) or possibly the Digital Record Extract (DRE).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • anon at 1022

    that would aid the filing process

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Has anyone onsidered the potential use of SCR apart from emergency care - where it is probably irrelevant in a real emergency?
    - Medicine reconciliation
    - Ability for pharmacies to check on current medication (as opposed to that listed from rom previous prescriptions) and adverse reactions
    - and last - but not least - the possibility for patients - and AQPs - to import the information into decision support applications in order to decrease the risk of medication errors.
    see http://primaryhealthinfo.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/freds-saying-you-just-dont-get-it/

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I do not want anyone having access to my medical records for any reason.
    I wouldn't trust or use the 111 service.
    I most certainly wouldn't trust pharmacists, and why can't my GP be responsible fro checking my medication etc. he knows me better than anyone?

    Once medical records are made available online, the whole world will be able to access them, I would give it three months!

    In hospital, doctors ask you the same questions 20 times, so how would SCR help them, they either can't read or can't understand English? When you are not well, it is distressing to have so many people ask you the same questions so many times!

    The patient, and only the patient should decide who has access to their medical records!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There is inherent risk to patients when some patient records are not shared between health care professionals. For example, when patients are admitted to hospitals we do not always get detailed information about a patient's medication, especially if they are admitted in an emergency or after a GP surgery closes. This could mean that you do not receive your correct medication until the next time the surgery is open and we request a current list. Sharing this record is essential to stop mis-information and potential harm through missed medication.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Joined up thinking - the government has a vision for 7 day working, so the medication list will be available every day. Hence no need for the partial GP record.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say