GPs confident their data is fit to share

Tags: Data quality email Pulse SCR

24 Jun 2010

Four out of five GPs believe the quality of their practice data is fit for sharing, according to a survey on the future of general practice IT.

More than 500 GPs took part in a survey by doctors’ magazine Pulse which looked at GPs use of IT systems now and their views on access to information out-of-hours.

The survey found that 82% of GPs thought the quality of the data held in their practice’s clinical system was of sufficient quality to share with other healthcare. Only 7% thought their data quality was not fit for sharing and 11% said they were unsure.

The survey also found that 56% of respondents had received electronic records through the GP2GP transfer project. Just under one in three GPs (30%) thought that the quality of the records was good enough to ensure seamless delivery of a high quality service but 25% said that the quality of the records was not good enough.

GP data quality was described as one of the ‘wicked problems’ delaying implementation of the Summary Care Record in the independent evaluation of the SCR LINK published two weeks ago with researchers finding that SCRs did sometimes contain incomplete or inaccurate data.

Dr Gillian Braunold. Clinical director of the SCR and guest editor of this week’s Pulse, said the independent evaluation had “rightly pointed out the complexities of implementation” and said the forthcoming review of the SCR was “necessary to ensure the profession and patients understand what it is and its purpose.”

However, in an editorial Dr Braunold also argued that the SCR was also providing useful information where none other was available in out-of-hours care and said the surveyed showed GPs believed this was important.

The Pulse survey found that 91% of GPs believed additional clinical information should be available to clinicians to provide safe and efficient out-of-hours care. Just under a quarter of doctors (24%) said the core information provided in the SCR was enough while 39% thought an enhanced summary record including details of past medical history was important and 28% said the full detailed GP record should be available.

Dr Braunold added: “As GPs are increasingly scrutinized over the quality of out-of-hours care, we need to exploit the IT tools that have been built to improve safety while observing information governance standards to protect the confidentiality of information.”

The survey also found that few GPs currently used IT solutions to access their records while doing home visits, A total of 78% said they took a paper summary print-out, 7% said they had no clinical information available and only 6% accessed either a mobile stored copy of the GP record or had real-time remote access to detailed records.

GPs who had used email consultations were also in a minority. Of those who completed the survey 77% said they had never carried out an email consultation while 18% said they had provided email consultations in response to a patient request and 1% had after a clinician at the practice gave patients the option.

Most GPs did not support email consultations (25%) or were unsure about their benefits (51%) with only 12% reporting that they felt the benefits outweighed the drawbacks.

Fiona Barr

Reader's Comments

SCR's

29 Jun 10 19:06

SCR's are not about what GP's think, they are about what we the patients feel is safe in their hands.

I also feel this is just the tip of the iceberg, get us all to agree then anyone will be able to access these records. It is already reported that the DVLA, employers, benefit office etc may be given access, and no doubt anyone else that can tweak the system.

I have opted out in 2006 and will never trust the NHS to keep my business private.

Hospitals deal with unconscious patients without prying, some NHS staff cannot even write a basic report and get the facts right, even with written information in front of them.

I have opted and and will continue to do so. Doctors need to realise that once this stuff is on a screen, it can be shown to anyone.

How long I wonder, before the security is breached?

82%

roger.hook@nuneatonandbedworth.gov.uk

30 Jun 10 09:06

Only 82% of GPs believe their data is fit to share. Extremely scarey when that data could be used in life-threatening situations! Supposing only 82% of airlines thought their planes were fit to fly; would you take the chance?

Surely we have a right to expect 99.9% of data to be fit to share.

Disparity

30 Jun 10 10:06

I think that the important figures here are that 82% of GPs think that their electronic records are fit to share but only 30% of recipient GPs agree. I appreciate that the GPs who think them fit are probably nottalking about the same degree of usefullness as the others as GPs need a lot more detail for day-to-day care than the bare bones of SCR but it is a little worrying.

GP2GP data quality

30 Jun 10 20:06

It is important to understand what the question asked - it was is the quality of the record your receive sufficinetly good to enable seamless continuity of service. That is an aspiration for all but the GP2GP team would not make that claim currently since there is such variation in the different systems we use and the way we therefore record the data. The question was not about SCR. Gillian Braunold

Summaries (including SCR) and perceived data quality

maryhawking@tigers.demon.co.uk

04 Jul 10 20:07

One of the problems with the SCR is the lack of definition of the purpose and therefore data requirements, due, in part (IMHO) to mission creep in the specifications.

If the SCR is supposed to support Urgent Care, and only Urgent Care, then it ought to be possible to draw up some specifications - and knowledge of what would - and possibly more importantly what would not - be included would allow the Urgent Care practitioners to understand the parameters of the information and allow for areas which were, by design, not included.

I agree that basic information - such as the Scottish ECR dataset - would be very useful, and has the potential to improve patient safety, not only in Urgent Care but also (especially?) in Medcines Reconciliation if a patient is admitted, but what this actually means is that for the vast majority of the population without significant problems and no medication, there is no advantage to offset potential risks.

As far as "data (or records) "fit for sharing"" goes, the data in a practice may be brilliant for use in the practice but that doesn't necessarily mean that a receiving organisation would be able to interpret it safely. Please don't forget that the objective is to **improve** patient safety.

*Summaries* are tailored to the recipient: the Summary for an orthopaedic surgeon, the Diabetic Clinic and the practice counsellor will be very different. Could someone define what is needed by the Urgent Care end users?

NB although Gordon Brown and Alex Salmon are known to have had their ECRs accessed by someone in the NHS without any Legitimate Relationship, the ECR contains - and will always contain - only medication, allergies and adverse reactions...