Engage GPs in the IT process
Plans by the Department of Health to have GPs able to offer patients at least four choices of where they are treated by the end of the year look unlikely to be achieved. Only 60 to 70 per cent of GPs will have access to the preferred electronic booking service by December 2005. This will come as little surprise to those doom-mongers in the IT and health industries who raise their eyebrows and shrug their shoulders at any mention of IT, implementation, NHS and success in the same sentence.
Earlier this week, the National Audit Office published a critique of
the progress of the plans entitled “Patient choice at the point
of GP referral”. While undertaking the investigation, the NAO carried
out a survey into GPs’ views and found that about 50 per cent knew
little about the choice programme, and 60 per cent felt negative to some
degree. The report revealed that the problems are as much to do with
a lack of engagement of GPs than a lack of hardware or software. This
is a risk that the DoH must address promptly if the targets of choice
are to be achieved, according to the NAO.
What has all this to do with pharmacy? In two years’ time or so,
the NAO could easily be publishing a report into the progress of the
national implementation of the integrated care record. Once again, although
there could be specific IT issues that restrict pharmacists’ access
to GP systems, the main difficulty could be the failure to engage GPs
in the process.
Nearly 18 months ago, in September 2003, John Chisholm, chairman of the
general practitioners’ committee of the British Medical Association,
spoke about pharmacy access to patient records at the UniChem
Convention in Dubai (PJ, 4 October 2003, p473). He reiterated the belief held by
all health professionals that the confidentiality of personal health
information and the concept of informed consent to data sharing are precious.
But when asked whether GPs would be comfortable about sharing patient
records with pharmacists, Dr Chisholm thought there would be some resistance,
although personally he would be in favour. He also commented that some
members of the public might be resistant because of fear that too many
people would have unrestricted access to personal health information,
an issue that the National Programme for IT has acknowledged a number
of times, including this week (p71). “I believe that there is a
need for both public and professional debate on data sharing and the
implications of the Integrated Care Record Service,” he said.
In other words, the debate needs to be far further developed than it
is. If everyone waits, the DoH and the pharmacy profession may — in
two years or so — find that their hopes for the Integrated Care
Record Service are dashed, not just because the IT is not perfect in
all places, but because GPs are negative and have not been properly engaged
in the process.
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal