By Steve Ranger, 28 February 2006 16:45
NEWS
The second trial of the electronic transfer of a patient's healthcare record from one GP surgery to another has been completed.
The record was electronically transferred from Cowes Health Centre to Grove House Surgery on the Isle of Wight, via the NHS Spine using clinical software from supplier In Practice Systems, according to NHS Connecting for Health.
The first live trial of the GP-to-GP system late last year used the Emis GP clinical system software.
The GP-to-GP system allows the complete electronic patient record to be transferred directly to the new surgery's computer system - rather than being sent in paper format and then reinputted manually.
Paper-based transfers of medical records can take up to six weeks to complete. And with 3.3 million people changing their GP every year, that's a lot of paper in the post.
Dr Paul Cundy, chairman of the British Medical Association's GP IT committee, said in a statement: "The electronic transfer of patient records from one GP surgery to another is an enormous benefit for patients and practices alike."
A third live trial in another primary care trust is due later this year, transferring patient records between both types of GP clinical system.
National rollout of GP-to-GP transfers is expected to start following the live trials.
Comments
There are 2 comments. Join the discussion
1. Mary Hawking
The real gains will come when there is a facility to transfer a record from system A to system B - where the systems are *all* of the systems in use in the UK.
Transfers within one system (EMIS to EMIS, IPS to IPS er.. sometime iSoft to iSoft?) are useful - but limited: what do you do if the patient wants to move from, say, a TPP to iSoft practice?
What companies are involved apart from EMIS and IPS?
2. Philip Virgo
In 1983 the NCC Microsystems Centre tested six Computer Systems designed for use by General Practioners under a contract with the DTI.
All had routines for exporting the patient record to disc and for importing patient records from disc.
Most had routines for recording prescriptions and adverse reactions for reporting to pharmaceutical companies and/or the NHS.
Most also had multiple levels of "sealed envelope", including for seriously confidential information (e.g. "caught xzy from neighbour of the practice receptionist").
The political/administrative reasons why routines for passing electronic patient records between practices and routinely reporting reactions were not used in the UK over subsequent years do not bear examination.
Constructive debate over the "real" issues of patient record oconfidentiality and security also appear to have moved forward at a similar snails pace.
Perhaps some of you other readers can help explain why.