The British Medical Association (BMA) has told the Department of Health (DH) that it wants to see no further rollout of the Summary Care Record beyond the early adopter sites until the independent evaluation has been completed and ways forward agreed.
It says it will advise doctors outside the early adopter primary care trusts (PCTs) against uploading information onto the SCR until the review has been published.
In a letter to Ben Bradshaw, the health minister in charge of the National Programme for IT (NPfIT), Dr Hamish Meldrum, chairman of the BMA Council, sets out a series of recommendations from the BMA on the National Programme for IT (NPfIT).
The recommendations include a demand that the DH seeks a definitive legal opinion on the issues raised during the Health Select Committee hearings concerning the legality of the SCR and the Data Protection Act, that it works with the BMA to produce a code of practice for uploading information to the SCR and that it develops joint working with the BMA on a final public information campaign on the SCR.
On the SCR rollout the association states: “The SCR must not be rolled out beyond the six early adopter PCTs until the results of the independent review have been made public and ways forward have been agreed by the Summary Care Record Advisory Group. A delay of a few months will not make much difference to the roll out of the programme but could make a real difference in terms of NHS Connecting for Health being seen to listen. This in itself will generate greater confidence.”
The BMA has also issued updated guidance on the SCR (subscription needed) for its members. The guidance states that three early adopter PCTs, Bolton, Bury and Dorset, have started their public information campaigns and a fourth early adopter site, South Birmingham, has recently joined the project. Two more early adopter PCTs are due to be announced later in the year.
Dr Robert Morley, secretary of Birmingham Local Medical Committee, told EHI Primary Care that the LMC would support the practices involved in the early adopter trial but did not endorse the project.
He added: “It’s not for us to say yes or no and there’s nothing we can do to stop it. Like the BMA we would like to see it fully evaluated before it’s rolled out nationally but there is a risk they will just go ahead anyway.”
The BMA paper on NPfIT, attached to the letter from Dr Meldrum, says the association has received locally tailored information material from the early adopter sites which was felt to be unacceptable. It calls for standard information to be produced, in conjunction with the medical defence organisations, which the DH should then insist PCTs use.
It says a service level agreement on uploading information to the SCR is necessary because some questions, such as multi-contributory records, remain unanswered and staff are unsure what is expected of them.
The paper from the BMA also includes a series of recommendations on implementation issues in secondary care including a call for a choice of systems for secondary care within an agreed framework, the establishment of a national implementation checklist to be completed before the implementation of any patient administration system (PAS) and access to the SCR for medical students.
The BMA also calls for greater clarity on the NPfIT Local Ownership Programme, calls on the DH to work with the BMA to resolve continuing issues with Choose and Book and requests clarity about the Secondary Uses Service (SUS) and more information for patients about how their information will be used by the SUS..
In his letter Dr Meldrum tells Bradshaw that doctors at the association’s annual representative meeting had expressed frustration about the programme and called for a public inquiry into CfH.
He states: “The BMA wants to see the programme succeed. We recognise that there have been some successes. We believe that with a change in leadership it is an appropriate time to review progress and set out a clear strategy for the future of the programme.”
A BMA spokesperson told EHI Primary Care that the association has not yet received a response from Ben Bradshaw to its letter.