I asked Katie Davis about this at EHI Live: she said we shouldn't worry about the funding and control of GP systems in the New Blue NHS (my understanding - not hers) after 1.4.13 - because the problem of funding GP IT was recognised, being discussed, and Number 10 was taking a personal interest.

My worry levels increased dramatically!

Unless someone has any other information, it looks as though there has been no consideration of the issues of funding for non-LSP systems, funding for LSP systems when the contracts expire, funding for the elements of GP IT support which are not part of the GP IT system/licenses and further development of the central requirements (e.g. patient record access) placed on the NHS (FYI GP system suppliers are businesses - and developing and supporting software has financial costs).

Fiona, are you asking for a wish-list (which would be ignored by politicians on experience so far) or looking for someone who has access to the thoughts of David Cameron?

Hi Mary

I was thinking more of a wish-list from thse in the primary care IT community although anyone who knows what David Cameron thinks on GP IT is more than welcome to join in! From speaking to a GPC negotiator before Christmas I got the impression that plans for GPSoC's successor (held up by uncertainty about how the NHS would look in April 2013) include a role for CCGs. Any thoughts on what this should or could be?

Obviously one of the requirements is online access to their records for patients. What I wonder is what supporting tools and functionality practices will require to make this happen.

There is a huge diversity of patient access systems available acros almost all GP system suppliers (apart from Isoft it appears) who will be submitting a nil return to the qurterly reporting requirement recently introduced to monitor patient access to records. However, I think it is the attitude of some of our GPs which needs to change in response to this requirement. I mentioned patient access to records to one GP, and was met with the answer, when Hell freezes over! Which is worrying when we are trying to implement better access. INPS have a paid for module, as do Microtest, at least for on-line appointment booking and repeat prescriptions, whereas EMIS access is free (if there is such a thing)! As CCGs will now be responsible for GP IT will this be tackled locally? Will Son of GPSOC be born, or do we go back to the fundholding model, or a derivitive of the same? Standardisation of the NGMS IT framework would be a good start