SCR suffers from variable GP data

The summary care record roll out

A confidential draft report from the evaluation of the Summary Care Record says data uploaded from GP practices is sometimes wrong but that the SCR can be useful when the data is accurate, Computer Weekly magazine has reported.

The IT magazine says the evaluation team from University College London found examples of uploads from GP records where there were inaccuracies and omissions in the data on medications, allergies and adverse reactions.

The researchers found no evidence that patients had come to harm because of the inaccurate or incomplete data but said doctors took extra time to double check details of medications and allergies, according to the magazine.

Concerns about the quality of the data uploaded from GP practices has been a theme since the SCR was first devised with GP practices originally incentivised to provide good quality data through an IM&T directed enhanced service which sought to create data ‘fit for sharing’.

Since the DES ended in March last year the quality of the SCR has been reliant on primary care trusts implementing data quality standards which has been criticised by some as providing no “carrot or stick” to practices on data quality.

The draft report from UCL is also reported to say that SCRs can be useful for clinicians if they are accurate, particularly if patients are poor at communicating or if they are on multiple medications and have difficulty remembering them.

Other findings reported are that there was no evidence that the SCR made consultations shorter and that in some cases it made consultations longer. There was also no direct evidence that SCRs led to safer carer although it might reduce some rare medication errors.

The final report on the SCR, originally due to be delivered in May but now reported to be published in April, is likely to arrive at a highly politically charged time with an election due in less than three months.

Last week the BMA also called for the SCR roll-out across five strategic health authorities to be suspended because it claimed roll-out had been accelerated before sufficient independent evaluation of the pilot areas had taken place.

Last September Prof Trish Greenhalgh, who leads the independent evaluation team, told EHI Primary Care  that data from the evaluation showed that the SCR sometimes adds value in out-of-hours consultations but so far had made a limited contribution in secondary care.

She said the final report would be a nuanced report on a complex area. “The final report will not say either the SCR is of no use or it’s the best thing since sliced bread,” she added at the time.

The DH told the Times newspaper that it did not want to comment ahead of the SCR’s report publication but said that errors resulted from problems with GPs’ original records rather than the system itself.