Surrey Heartlands Health and Care Partnership together with NHS East Surrey Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) has announced that the Surrey Care Record is due to be launched in August.
The record will see some GP records being made available to clinicians within the A&E departments of the four local hospital trusts – St Peter’s, Royal Surrey, Epsom and East Surrey.
Local GPs will also have access to the record when it is launched on 29 August.
Initially, it will only be shared by GPs and staff in local A&E departments at St Peter’s, East Surrey, Epsom and Royal Surrey Hospitals.
However, it is hoped other care staff will be able to access relevant information from other health and social care providers to further improve care in the future.
Dr Andrew Sharpe, Epsom GP and CCIO for Surrey Care Record, said: “Most patients already believe we are sharing records.
“Neighbouring areas such as Hampshire have had shared care records for years. Surrey Care Record brings the county into the digital 21st century – allowing care information to flow between organisations so patients only have to tell their story once.
“Other benefits that will help patients and staff alike include not having to repeat tests or outpatient appointments just because a patient’s records are invisible to some health and care staff.”
Patients can choose to opt out of the Surrey Care Record should they wish to.
NHS England is investing heavily in shared records and has named the first three Local Health and Care Record Exemplars (LHCRE).
The three areas, which have a total population of around 14 million, will receive £7.5m over two years and are tasked with putting in place an electronic shared local health and care record by building on existing local work.
6 June 2018 @ 13:11
Genuine question…. what’s wrong with them accessing SCR? The system that is already in place, can be accessed by multiple systems and wouldn’t need millions spending on it to deploy?
6 June 2018 @ 13:29
As a member of the public / potential patient, I was thinking the same thing. I presumed the first phase of the SCR (Surrey Care Record) is very similar to the SCR (Summary Care Record), even down to the acronym. As long as staff don’t refer to the SCR when seeking consent, as it will become very confusing to what you are giving consent to! Even Surrey and Summary could sound very similar to a patient not quite with it. It is probably stages beyond the first phase when it becomes more useful.
6 June 2018 @ 13:32
From Hampshire point of view, our Care and Health Information Exchange (CHIE – the new name for Hampshire Health Record) has a far richer data set than Summary Care Record. While it is not by any means fully comprehensive it is both broader and deeper. It also doesn’t require smartcard to access so we can make it slick to access from existing EPR systems (which is important in settings such as ED and Ambulance)
6 June 2018 @ 13:35
“It also doesn’t require smartcard to access”
Really? That sounds dodgy. Are the general public aware of that? The public is constantly being told how access to these systems is tightly controlled etc.
6 June 2018 @ 13:37
Why would that be dodgy? There are plenty of secure ways to control access to systems without use of smartcards.
6 June 2018 @ 13:43
I don’t disagree with you Mark, but the public are told access to these systems are controlled by smartcard. Especially if access has previously been controlled by smartcard and now it is not, even if there are other methods of control. It could appear to a patient that it is not as secure as they would have been led to believe.
6 June 2018 @ 13:49
Ah, ok, well access to HHR / CHIE has never been controlled by smartcard so we have never told the public this.
6 June 2018 @ 13:52
Well, that’s okay, then! I am still surprised by it. Others probably wouldn’t be surprised, or care. Maybe its just me!
5 June 2018 @ 17:56
But the faq on website goes on to say that there will be a full public consultation if there is a recommendation to share for other purposes in the future
http://surreyheartlands.uk/our-priorities/enabling-workstreams/digital/faq/
so, a contradiction of the ‘will never be shared’. But yes, a very good privacy notice. I had read somewhere else that anyone with an opt-out of the Summary Care Record (note the same initials, SCR, so potential confusion there), Type 1 or Type 2 will be automatically opted out, but no mention of this on the website. Children can also be opted out, which is a departure from the usual dictatorial attitude from the NHS. It looks like a serious attempt to try and gain some patient confidence.
5 June 2018 @ 18:03
Yes, Patients Know Best did say that, in addition to the usual opt-out read codes (93C1 and 9Nd1), anyone who had opted-out of the Summary Care Record would also be opted out of the Surrey Care Record. EMIS Web won’t allow it anyway in the presence of the Summary Care Record opt-out code.
They also said that the secondary uses opt-out codes (9Nu0 & 9Nu4/National Data Opt Out) codes would also prohibit, although I can’t see why given that there are no secondary uses of uploaded clinical data.
5 June 2018 @ 18:16
Maybe they’re just being ultra-cautious in opting out anyone who has expressed a dislike for sharing data. In which case why not just do it on a consensual basis?
5 June 2018 @ 11:26
Very good privacy notice:
http://surreyheartlands.uk/download/2610/
Reassuring that this is for direct care purposes only, and that “records and information will never be sold or given to insurance companies, drug companies or be used for research”.
5 June 2018 @ 10:53
What always makes me laugh is that anyone who is outside of the NHS thinks we already do this Nationally and have been for years , and then are dumbfounded when then find it is not case. Trick then is trying to explain why not is easy terms:-)
5 June 2018 @ 08:06
I hope that this proves more attractive to other districts than Hampshire’s attempts over the past decade
5 June 2018 @ 09:43
Interesting comment above, given that Hampshire and Isle of Wight’s record is one of the largest in the country, covers 2million people, and is continuing to add new users and new data sources all the time. It’s unfortunate that people seem intent on reinventing the wheel in different areas rather than joining in with already successful solutions.