GPs should remain the data controller for practice-based patient information and can’t be responsible for data inputted by other parts of the NHS if a single patient record is implemented, the Institute of General Practice Management (IGPM) has told MPs.
In an evidence session held on Tuesday by the House of Commons Public Bill Committee scrutinising the Health Bill, which brings in measures including the creation of the SPR, new responsibilities for ICBs and the CQC, and abolition of NHS England, Kay Keane, chair of the IGPM, voiced concerns about plans for the new patient record, warning that the unique trust between patient and their GP was at stake.
Ms Keane explained to MPs that an area of ‘real concern’ was that practices might be held responsible for data added to the record they have no control over from organisations other than themselves.
She said: ‘We can be very good data controllers of our own data…the stuff that we write about our patients, the stuff that we code about our patients. We code things to be able to respond to our contract, so we have to be good at that. When things kind of fall down is when information comes from other providers that we have no control of, and that would be an area of concern, of real concern, [if] that would then be part of our property and our jurisdiction.’
‘To be the data controller of other information, in our view, is too much, and it’s unmanageable for a general practice to do equally’, she added.
The worry about data coming in from other providers is also driven by uncertainty on how patients will respond, Ms Keane said, adding that they ‘need to understand exactly who has access, exactly who is feeding into that record’.
‘There is a huge amount of trust, as you will know, between a patient and a GP, or a patient and a healthcare professional in general practice and what we do not want is that trust to be diminished [or that the] patient stops telling us the things that are worrying them, the whole story.
‘We really want them to continue that trust, and if they think that that information is spreading further and further across the system, we might lose some of that.’
Additionally, bringing in the SPR has workload implications she told the committee of MPs drawn from all parties. Ms Keane explained that managing patient queries about the current summary care record already takes up a lot of resources – and practice manager time.
She told MPs: ‘We kind of look after data that’s in the GP summary care record, that creates lots of questions for our patients. They’ll see information in there that they’re not sure about, that they want help with. There are lots of patients who have a variety of health inequalities that might mean they can’t access that data. So our non-clinical staff in general practice are often helping them to navigate their way around all that of that information. All of those things take time. That does take an awful lot of resources in general practice to educate the patients, to support the patients.’
She added that ‘practically’ it’s practice managers up and down the country that take on that day to day responsibility and went on to state that given the current demands, being able to manage the SPRF too ‘would take a huge amount of investment into general practice’.
‘I would argue that maybe the investment into general practice shouldn’t be on data, maybe that should be on the workforce wider than that.’
Speaking after the session, Ms Keane said the IGPM being invited to provide evidence before a Parliamentary Committee was an opportunity to ensure that practice managers’ voice was heard.
‘ Lots of professions have appeared before Parliamentary Committees. GPs, nurses, NHS organisations and representative bodies have all had a seat at the table.
What made this week different was that practice management was there in its own right. Not as a support function, or an operational footnote but as a profession with its own expertise, perspective and evidence on how health policy becomes reality.’
