You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 9, Issue 12
  • Improving data sharing between acute hospitals in England: an overview of health record system distribution and retrospective observational analysis of inter-hospital transitions of care

Responses

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Health services research
Original research
Improving data sharing between acute hospitals in England: an overview of health record system distribution and retrospective observational analysis of inter-hospital transitions of care
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 13 December 2019
    The Summary Care Record: A Forgotten, Underutilized, But Indispensable Tool in the Era of Electronic Records
    • Aditya Borakati, Academic Foundation Doctor Royal Free Hospital
    • Other Contributors:
      • Jamone Singh, Foundation Year Two Doctor

    Dear Editor,
    We read the excellent article by Warren and colleagues [1] with interest and agree wholeheartedly with the need for consolidated access to health records for clinicians across the healthcare ecosystem in the UK.
    As junior doctors, we are often left with the laborious task of sourcing and amalgamating these disparate records for individual patients, with patients often surprised that we do not have access to all their information.
    We note the authors recommend the common adoption of the same EHR software for trusts in the same region and the transfer of records between systems by open APIs. These aims are laudable, however, remain problematic:
    1) Utilising the same EHR between NHS trusts does not necessarily guarantee any further ease of transfer than alternate EHRs; many trusts customise their EHR to their local preferences and hence implementations and data structures may vary significantly between trusts despite adopting the same EHR [2]. Further, even with the same systems, each trust will likely operate on differing domains, often requiring lengthy governance processes to facilitate transfer of records.
    2) Open APIs such as Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) [3] are available and implemented by the 3 major EHR vendors in the UK [4–6]. Despite this, exchange of records between different NHS trust systems remains limited.
    The Summary Care Record (SCR) was initially intended as a repository of essential medic...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.