TechUK sets out view on EPRs

NHS England should provide trusts with a “consistent outcomes-focused” guidance to make sure they take strategic decisions when buying electronic patient record systems, TechUK has said.

The supplier’s body issued a report outlining its view of the best way to support the EPR market as NHS England launched an investigation into the benefits and weaknesses of introducing a national accreditation system for EPR suppliers.

TechUK believes there is a place for EPR accreditation that provides value both to suppliers and the NHS.

However, it argues that it must follow “a key set of principles” that include setting clearly defined business goals, not acting as a barrier to market entry for innovative systems, and consistent application.

It adds that it would support looking to countries like the US, where the accreditation policies include incentive based payments, but where excessive accreditation has also involved high costs for suppliers.

The organisation also argues that accreditation can only be part of the picture. Whether it goes ahead or not, its report argues there must be consistent, outcomes-focused guidance for provider organisations to make sure strategic buying decisions are made using government funding.

“This guidance should be based on predefined usage criteria for collecting, using and sharing digital data using EPRs to the levels required to achieve the aims of the Integrated Digital Care Record [the ultimate aim of NHS England’s guidance for trusts applying to the two technology funds],” it says.

It adds that financial incentives are a “fantastic opportunity” to engage trusts in adopting technology, but says there is a risk that without “appropriate guidance, funding can be spent unwisely on systems that do not meet the requisite standards in functionality to deliver on these outcomes.”

 “Accrediting systems in an appropriate manner could complement this guidance and ensure trusts of all levels of capacity and capability are able to make high quality purchasing decisions that align with their own roadmap for achieving clinical benefits by using technology,” the report adds.

TechUK also says the complexity of EPR accreditation in the UK would be greater than the in the US, because of the variety of suppliers. As a result, it is worried that accreditation could become a barrier to entering the market for small and medium enterprises.

“The significant investment required to be certified can lead to a market monopoly, whereby only the companies that can afford to dedicate time and resource to the process can do business,” says the report.

“In this case, it could create an environment that hinders rather than helps government’s ambition to make business more accessible to SMEs and ultimately reducing the size of the market.”

NHS England’s review is still only a preliminary investigation. However, TechUK urges the board to conduct a formal consultation with stakeholders before making a final decision.

Although NHS England does not have a clear definition on what an EPR is, it is using the capabilities defined by the Clinical Digital Maturity Index, developed by EHI Intelligence, as a guide.