Patient records access functionality will be centrally funded via the new GP Systems of Choice contract.
Draft documents on the Health and Social Care Information Centre website indicate that practices will be able to choose to buy the service from third-party vendors, or from their core GP system supplier.
GPSoC is a framework contract which funds GP IT systems for more than 80% of practices in England.
The framework expired this month, but an extension has been agreed until a new contract is in place towards the end of this year.
The tender for the new contract was due out at the end of March, but has not been released. However, a lot structure document gives details of the new arrangements.
It says functionality to provide patients’ transactional services, patient records access and patient/clinician online communication will be part of Lot 1, which is funded centrally.
These services can be provided by principal system suppliers or third-party suppliers.
Founder of the Healthcare App Network for Development and Innovation Ewan Davis said the new GPSoC arrangements were welcome news to app developers.
“Principal suppliers will definitely make a direct offering as part of GPSoC, but I’m also certain that new app providers in particular will want to produce patient record access apps,” he said
“The way the framework works there’s no real constraint on that.
“My expectation would be direct interfacing and a number of apps,” he added.
A recent report produced by the Royal College of GPs recommended that the IT to provide 'Patient Online' would need to be mandated through GPSoC and local service providers contract processes.
A draft GPSoC Patient Services Requirements document, also made available by the HSCIC, says: “The requirements in this document have been informed by the discussions within, and the draft outputs from, the RCGP-led Patient Online Roadmap, but have not been endorsed by that programme”.
“A key objective of these requirements is to enable a market in subsidiary modules to develop, offering distinctive services, which are only constrained for consistency where they need to be.”
The paper says the principal suppliers of GP systems need to enable practice staff to register patients for online services and to proactively invite specific patients to register.
“Suppliers should be aware that, in the medium-term, the intention is to move from locally-identified and authenticated patients, to the use of common cross-governmental citizen identity mechanisms,” it adds.
The transactional functionality must allow practices to choose to have all laboratory results made available to patients online as soon as they are received, or to allow them to be workflowed by practice staff first and potentially not made available to the patient.
Patients should be able to update their demographic information as well as view and cancel appointments without any additional activity by practice staff.
They should also be able to view and order repeat prescriptions and request medication that is not set up as a repeat.
The system must be capable of displaying details of who has previously accessed the record via any online service and highlight any new information added since the patient’s last visit.
According to the HSCIC documents, also included in Lot 1 and therefore centrally funded, will be telehealth and mobile clinical applications.
© 2013 EHealth Media.
Davesandbach is right and a star patient/citizenRichard Fitton 71 weeks ago
Under Section 36 of the DPA you may all of course process your own data and so you should. Check and follow your results and outcomes , prognosticate your life expectancy and do some thing about it. If you access your GP record you can show it and share it as you wish any where in the world. Likewise if you have no custodial disputes your children's records and those of your legal dependants. With an appropriately completed Lasting power of attorney when they have mental capacity you can access the records of your dependant and frail friends or family. Similarly you can use an LPA to allow your family to see your record should you lose capacity
Here we go againspotlight 72 weeks ago
This is obviously the wrong place to put patient access. And now by making it centrally funded they will remove the local funding and therefore the market for patient access systems which address the real need - ie accessing the wider health record so the patient can see the complete picture.
Yet another own goal by the central teams. Like with NPfIT it would be so much better if they just stayed out of it (unless you are one of the handful of suppliers that rakes in the cash of course - with rather mixed delivery results). Nationally chosen supplier reports and accounts sometimes make very interesting reading.
I suppose if you have a central team, they have to do something with their time and this is definitely something. All those names on the draft documentation. Keep up the good work. Pah!
A patient centric record - no problem.davesandbach 72 weeks ago
Citizens should not trust the NHS with maintaining a patient centric record. Lots of health interventions take place outside the NHS e.g. when abroad or in the private sector e.g. at the dentist.
I have a method of integrating all my medical records which are available to me on line 24/7 in fact a few minutes ago I updated my records by inputting my BP and Blood sugar readings.
Please see theBig EPR debate and my comments;
I am already paperless
19 April 2013 07:47
I have all my medical records online available to me 24/7.
My records include hospital, GP, dental, ophthalmic and daily collected data e.g. BP, Blood sugar readings. Also advanced directive and living will instructions.
If I had a social care record this information would also be part of my online record.
Any citizen can collect and store their records (securely) without the need to seek permission from the state or the agents of the state e.g. CCGs, GP hospital admin etc.
In short I can more or less integrate my care pathway as and when I need to rely on the care system.
I am a former NHS CEO who has broken the corporate silo problem on an individual basis.
To see how it is done go to:
Penetration testing for local GP infrastructurekenni39 72 weeks ago
The documents produced regarding patient access are interesting, but I can see an additional requirement that will cost either the CCG or the practice, and that is for PEN testing. Hosted environments will have their data centre PEN tested as part of IGSOC requirements, but this has never been mandated for local GP systems, or their Practice LAN infrastructure. The average price for this is approx 2K. If you look at the largest CCG that is a potential cost pressure of approx 250K pa
Incomplete recordsJohnT 72 weeks ago
So what happens to the patient centric record as this on face value just gives access to primary care so do we have separate records for acute mental health community and social care. Possibilty from multiple providers ! Whilst good to be centrally funded think there should be more consultation about right direction to takes this a several good products around which will get sidelined as most will opt for central funded solution ( why wouldn't you in current climate)