Mark Davies et al1 describe the primary purpose of the Summary Care Record thus: ‘to improve patient care by ensuring that limited but important clinical information is available’ (in circumstances such as emergency A&E attendance, etc).
Do we have any evidence that lives have been lost through the absence of such information, or saved, through the availability of such? Given the cost of the Summary Care Record, one would have thought that such a record would provide more than mere convenience.
It seems to me that many clinicians are less than keen about the Summary Care Record because they cannot see that the above primary purpose justifies such a massive undertaking. Not surprisingly, some of us feel that behind it lies socio-political expediency. ‘Giving control to patients’1 — giving control to government, seems more likely, with GPs like civil servants, feeding the system.
- © British Journal of General Practice, 2008.
