Welcome Guest | Login | Register | Why Register? |
Newsletter RSS Twitter
18 March 2010 | 06:43 GMT


HOME | CONTACT | NEWS | DOCUMENT LIBRARY | FEATURES | OPINION & ANALYSIS | EVENTS | RESEARCH REPORTS | CASE STUDIES

PCTs plan moves to single system

Tags: child   Choice   Community   Contract   EMIS   GP   GPs   GPSoC   INPS   iSoft   Lorenzo   NME   PCT   PCTs   SHA   Social care   Solution   SystmOne   TPP   Vision  

31 Jul 2007

Primary care trusts (PCTs) in some areas of northern England have set out plans to move all GP practices onto a single system, TPP’s SystmOne, as contracts for the GP Systems of Choice (GPSoC) initiative are about to be signed.

More than a dozen PCTs in the North-east have published IM&T plans which outline the desire to move all practices onto SystmOne by 2011 and East Midlands Strategic Health Authority has told its nine PCTs not to offer free choice through GPSoC 'by default.'

The SHA has also instructed its PCTs to consider retaining ‘ownership’ of whichever primary care systems are adopted to control what providers do with the systems and to enable access to patient information.

In a paper seen by EHI Primary Care, Dave Marsden, East Midlands director of strategic IM&T, says there are a number of key strategic issues that PCT boards should consider before proceeding beyond the initial sign-up of existing GP systems under GPSoC.

The paper states: “Whilst there is a clear provision under nGMS contract for GPs to have a choice of system it would seem reasonable for the PCT as the commissioner of GP services to have a view about which of the 8/9 systems they might prefer GPs to use.”

Marsden cites the clauses in the nGMS contract which state that each practice will have guaranteed choice from a number of systems but that such choices will be consistent with local delivery plans and in line with local business cases and service level agreements.

He adds: “In the light of this it could be argued that a PCT has the option to ‘encourage’ its GPs to move to a shared primary and community care system such as TPP’s SystmOne which is already deployed in seven out of nine of our PCTs and will be deployed for all community services by March 2008.”

The paper adds: “Clearly this is a sensitive area and we understand that there are multiple pressures on PCTs. The SHA view is that PCTs should discuss this and form a view rather than adopting free choice by default and that that view should be revisited on at least an annual basis.”

Dr Paul Cundy, co-chairman of the Joint IT Committee of the British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners, said he had seen the letter from NHS East Midlands.

He told EHI Primary Care: “We have shared it with Gillian Braunold [Connecting for Health’s joint primary care lead] and she has confirmed our view that the letter is unacceptable. It should be withdrawn or ignored...It is completely at odds with our contract with government and agreement with CfH.”

On ownership of systems,  the paper from Marsden says PCTs have a key decision to make.

It adds: “PCTs have a choice between allowing providers to own the system and to independently configure it for themselves in their best interests or to own it as a commissioner system that is configured to ensure that providers (only) do what providers are required to do.

“Further if commissioners retain ownership of the system and require (all of) their providers to use it they will have real time access to information on (all of) their patients.”

Marden made plain in a statement to EHIPC, however, that the SHA was fully committed to the implementation of GPSoC which the authority saw as a major step forward for GP computing.

He said : "My briefing note to PCTs was intended to remind them of their responsibility to take a strategic view of GP IT which will be used to inform their discussions with practices about their future choice of system. This was the intention of the statement: 'that PCTs should discuss this (GPSoC) and form a view rather than adopting free choice by default'.

"I appreciate that this has been interpreted otherwise and hope that this clarification will allay GPs' concerns."

Dr Gillian Braunold said:" I am pleased that Dave Marsden has been given the opportunity to clarify his position. His choice of words regarding choice was unfortunate but the paper as a whole is supportive of GPSoC and emphasises the need for PCTs to invest in the training and implementation activity that they will need to undertake in support of GPSoC.

"Under GPSoC practices will be able to confirm their choice of system and will be able to retain their existing system or migrate to an alternative once they have agreed a business case for migration with their PCT."

NHS North East IM&T plans written in May  show that at least 14 PCTs wish to move all practices onto SystmOne.

The plan for County Durham and Darlington PCTs states that, as of March 2007, there were 20 practices using SystmOne, 50 practices using EMIS, 10 practices using INPS Vision and six practices using iSOFT Synergy. The trusts’ migration plan is to move to a position in 2009 where there are 60 SystmOne practices and 25 remaining EMIS practices and 2011 where the entire community is covered by SystmOne for general practice as well as community, child health and prison systems.

The plan states: “The overall plan for clinical systems aims to standardise on TPP SystmOne, deploy TPP SystmOne to all community staff (including community hospitals), all general practices, all prisons, all unscheduled care services, all child health teams, Ensure TPP SystmOne is integrated to other NHS systems and to social care systems.”

The identified benefits include reduction in maintenance and server replacement costs, availability of a single patient record with integration across primary care, enabling appropriate information sharing and more effective data collection.

It acknowledges that a key risk to the plan is that “GPs are not willing to change to the strategic solution”. The plan identifies financial savings for the PCTs in excess of £600,000 by 2010/11 if the switch is made.

The IM&T plan for Tees local health communities states that a migration path towards a single strategic solution is planned by 2011 with TPP remaining the strategic solution for PCTs, a strategy which it says be reviewed when Lorenzo 3.5 becomes available in 2009.

The current plan for migration includes moving all practices in Middlesbrough to TPP by 2009 and all practices in Hartlepool and North Tees by 2010,

Similar strategies are outlining by other PCTs in the region including Newcastle and North Tyneside PCTs. The plan for the North of Tyneside local health community states that all three North of Tyneside primary care organisations have board level agreement on the LSP Phoenix system (SystmOne) being the strategic GP system of choice.

The IM&T plan states: “The Phoenix system is therefore being rolled out to practices on an ongoing basis, as and when practices make a choice to migrate to this system. Practices are being encouraged to consider implementation of Phoenix, but the actual pace of implementation is being dictated by choices made by individual practices within the framework of GPSoC.

"The first seven practice implementations of Phoenix have taken place in 06-07. At the time of writing, a further seven implementations are being planned following written letters of intent being received. It is expected that this number will increase very significantly throughout 07-08 and beyond.”

Last week CSC, local service provider for the North, Midlands and East, announced that it had reached 600 installations of SystmOne in the region.

Leigh Donoghue, CSC’s director of primary care, told EHI Primary Care that in Yorkshire and the Humber 30% of practices now use TPP and 20% in the East Midlands.

He added: “The momentum for deploying these systems, which first began when Accenture was the local service provider to the North-east and Eastern cluster, has continued to thrive in CSC’S NME [North, Midlands and East] Programme for IT patch and across the region, take-up of the TPP system is building.”

© 2007 E-HEALTH-MEDIA LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Reader's Comments
Add a comment
Reader's Comments

1

A recipe for chaos and discontent

angus.goudie@GP-A89021.nhs.uk

31 Jul 07 14:07

I feel that this apporach is very short sighted and a recipie for less not greater integration in the short term. If i was going to move eventually to lorenzo or truly integrtaed soloution I would not choose to move incrementally to an unrelated system. It is widely accepted that each system transfer will take 6monhts or so before the end users are using it as well as the previous system, and will distract much time from looking after patients. Each stage will also lead to some data loss/ corruption however good code mapping might be. 2 chnages will lead to rgeater degradation. Both of theses will be increased by the fact that practices would be transferring from Read2 to CT3 and then to SNOMED. 2 changes of coding sytem is twice the learning and greater degradatoin of data than 1 coding sytem change.

In addition, many practices will recognise this and the presence of GPSoC and remain with their old system, even if only until the roadmap to Lorenzo or whatever is clear. The PCT will then be faced with code reporting from their practices being in a mixture of 2 coding systems. all training, coding advice across PCTs will be more complex, and work done in the past on local templates, and data quality will need substantial rewriting, assuming there are the staff to do it in these slimmed down days.


2

Farcical

01 Aug 07 12:08

Why have we just spent millions and millions of pounds of taxpayers money providing GP's with a choice of system (which they've had for 20 years anyway) if PCT's are allowed to ride roughshod over the whole thing?

I thought it was called GPSOC, not PCTSOC.


3

Response to "Farcical"

01 Aug 07 15:08

Quite simply because, as a taxpayer, I would prefer a mandated "National System", not any element of "System of Choice" by GPs. That way, there wouldn't be any discussion or debate about coding differences and GP2GP transferability, Spine and PDS interfacing, or interfacing/integration with secondary care and the plethora of other health and social services applications; in effect, it would become a "central" problem and issue. And the fact that PCTs are now expected to fund GP systems (rather than as before, when GPs had that choice and responsibility) makes it even more of a no-brainer. Mr Marsden is being, in my view, very sensible in "encouraging" the GPs in his patch to adopt a common GP system, a view which his colleagues in other PCTs would be equally sensible to adopt.


4

I've been there before

ken.leech@gmail.com

01 Aug 07 22:08

A comment from New Zealand: 7 years ago, I led the organisation I work for through a similar process of adopting a preferred system for the IPA, a rough equivalent of a PCT. It was the best thing we ever did for general practice. Whilst one should encourage different regions to have choice and thus encourage competition amongst suppliers, the advantages of having a PCT (or even bigger) all on one system are huge and outweigh the disadvantages several times over.


5

Re: Farcical

02 Aug 07 08:08

"Why have we just spent millions and millions of pounds of taxpayers money providing GP's with a choice of system.."

That is a very good question !

Similarly why are we spending great effort and funds on projects like GP2GP when seemless transfer of clinical records without data loss or change can be and is being achieved by community wide shared systems ? Yes there is an argument that choice will help maintain competition and stimulate suppliers to develop best quality products. But that choice needs to be based on a sensible size of "business unit" which can benefit from the product and individual GP practices are not that unit.


6

reponse to NZ experience(4)

angus.goudie@GP-A89021.nhs.uk

02 Aug 07 10:08

We obvoiusly aren't in the situation you experienced. In the NE we have very high levels of a single sysem or supplier, EMIS, with which the practices are generally very happy, which is spine/ GP2GP compliant etc and has had very considererable data analysis, data quality, audits etc. done across PCTs. Level of ceverage is 90-100% in several PCTs which are stating they want to move everyone to TPP. According to CfH policy only an interim until a single platform. Also it it has a different coding system CT3, (different from EMIS, or Lorenzeo which will use SNOMED from the outset), and migrating data out of TPP into other sytems or combining data with Read coded data is very difficult. The effort for moving practices and changing coding for perhaps 2years, and the patchy acceptance by the practices make this a retrograde step. Building on present strenghts, experience, data audit and quality work and then waiting for the single paltform when it it ready for a single switch would acheive the NZ benefits much more certainly.


7

SystmOne Integration with Lorenzo

02 Aug 07 13:08

I understand that agreement has been reached with CfH to make SystmOne a key part of CSC's strategic product set, fully integrated with Lorenzo. This will negate the need to migrate more than once and will also provide practices with access to Secondary Care information, (and visa versa).


8

it's the data, stupid

03 Aug 07 21:08

What is the reason for GPs wanting to choose between systems? It's not to remain loyal to the current systems - they are not shareholders, just users, and none are perfect. Nor is it to fabricate competition in the market - that's not their business, though you would think that a top-level strategic issue. It's because eHealth is at risk of being a doughnut that makes the Joint European Torus look a trifle: a vast and extravagant technical system surrounding a vacuous core of low-quality information. The quality of the data is assured only if the systems' users are capable of processing structured and coded data from the whole human condition within 10min timeslots while simultaneously managing sick people. That is so difficult a design challenge that there is no one best way to do it: there must be several ranges of usability on offer to cover the span of users being extended from informatically-educated GPs to all GPs and NMAHP users. The simplistic single-minded views in the story are apparently from a "Strategic" Health Authority. Pity they seem to be driven just by minimising the costs of support within its geographical unit rather than a real strategic vision of the value of high-quality data for eHealth.


9

the data - huh?

07 Aug 07 15:08

I'm sorry, I don't understand? Hasn't millions of pounds been given to GP Practices for meeting QOF targets over the last 2 years to help improve the quality of patient records?

Are you saying that the data you have collected to obtain payments can't be trusted by fellow clinicians?


10

The Data.

director@doctors.org.uk

08 Aug 07 14:08

"Hasn't millions of pounds been given to GP Practices for meeting QOF targets over the last 2 years to help improve the quality of patient records?"

No, not really. The money was given to improve the quality of patient care - something which the evidence suggests has actually happened! As I understand it, the point about the data is that, because of the very limited discriminatory ability of the coding, the quality of the data is very poor. That is a function of the coding system and not of the users.


11

"Data" means the whole clinical record

09 Aug 07 08:08

Yes, QOF data is only a subset of Readcodes for a tiny subset of clinical practice. A usable shareable eRecord must include: 1 - codes for all the data that each user might wish to compute on; so more users sharing a record multiplies the scale of coding needed. For example, sorting the display by topic depends on every user selecting the same term to head the topic. 2 - freetext to give full clinical context to the codes - just as extensive as in paper notes 3 - attachments e.g. ECGs, photos, images of legacy paper records 4 - security status for each component, to manage access etc. etc.

Even if an agreed new Supersystem were ready to implement tomorrow, these issues would have to be addressed in interoperating with all eRecords to date, whether that is in live clinical use, or off-line as in migrating data to the new system.

So the "Data Quality" risks degradation as soon as moved outwith the original system. GP2GP transfers are Quality-assured - but only between specific softwares. System changes are also QA'd but variably between specific softwares.

For these "Strategic" non-thinkers who want to impose a single system, mass data loss causing the system to be devoid of clinically useable data is a massive risk.


12

Re A recipe for chaos and discontent

09 Sep 07 12:09

I think 6 months is optimistic and could take as long as 18 months for practices to get up to the same stage as their previous system. Data will be lost in the data transfer; including the all important audit trail -which helped to convict Shipman. Dead and removed patients will be lost in a tranfer to systmOne - again possibly causing medico-legal problems. If such problems arise, you can bet it will be the GP in the dock, not the PCT IT lead -who has probably moved on anyway! It seem crazy that when the majority of GPs are using a particular system, they are been "encouraged" to switch to a system that a minority of practices are using and to a system which is inferior to the one they are using.

Search
News Features Jobs Newsletters

Featured_recruiters
Featured_recruiters