Intended for healthcare professionals

Letters Summary care records

RCGP supports use of summary care records

BMJ 2009; 338 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2516 (Published 23 June 2009) Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:b2516
  1. Clare Gerada, vice chair1,
  2. Stephen Field, chair1
  1. 1Royal College of General Practitioners, London SW7 1PU
  1. prennie{at}rcgp.org.uk

    The Royal College of General Practitioners supports the use of the summary care record. We now believe that there are enough checks and balances to make it a significant move forward in patient safety and clinical care.

    Important changes to security have been made since the scheme was first introduced. The record is now held securely and can be accessed only using computers attached to the NHS spine network. An audit trail is produced whenever the record is accessed, and patients can request information about access to their record.

    The original model was based on patients opting out, but it is now “consent to view.”1 Patients will now, except in certain circumstances, always be asked before their record is accessed. They can still refuse to have a summary record, change their minds at any stage, and limit what is being shared. This is a reasonable model offering the best protection of confidentiality balanced against the best access to information when appropriate.

    Some general practitioners see the summary care record as a threat to their position as guardians of the continuous health record, arguing that if other providers of primary care can access a patient’s health record one of the key tenets of general practice will be lost. We recognise this fear but have more confidence in the intrinsic value of general practice—a value that far exceeds access to clinical records.

    With the variety of care on offer and the range of conditions that patients develop, the need for a shared record is compelling. The summary care record will produce faster access to up to date information about patients and improve the ability to deliver safer, more effective care wherever the patient chooses to access that care.

    Notes

    Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:b2516

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests: None declared.

    References