Introducing a nationally shared electronic patient record: Case study comparison of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland
Highlights
► National scale electronic record programmes bring technical challenges but also personal, social and organisational ones. ► This secondary analysis compared attempts to introduce a nationally shared electronic summary record. ► England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland approached the challenge differently. ► The four countries differed widely in the available budget and approach to implementation. ► More money and tighter deadlines did not produce faster implementation.
Section snippets
Background
Most citizens, and clinicians, are positive about the idea of a secure summary of key medical details, accessible from wherever the patient seeks care [1], [2], [3]. Many European countries, and others such as Australia, USA and Canada, are currently seeking to establish such a summary [4], [5], [6]. The potential benefits of a nationally-accessible electronic record (known in the USA as health information exchange), assuming such a system to be fully secure, perfectly accurate and universally
Scotland
The basic version of Scotland's Emergency Care Summary (ECS) lists current and discontinued medication and adverse reactions. It was piloted in two Health Boards in 2004 and rolled out across Scotland by 2006. By 2011, it was connected in 100% of general practices across Scotland. A new national data store was built to host the records and pre-existing electronic links (‘e-links’) with practices were used to connect with this. Patients’ medical and demographic details are automatically updated
Method
This study was a secondary, reflective analysis of data collected by us in our roles as participants in and/or evaluators of the national shared record programmes. The dataset consisted of both quantitative data (letters sent, records uploaded, records accessed and similar metrics) and qualitative data (documents such as strategies, business plans, minutes of meetings and so on; interviews with clinicians, project managers, commercial software suppliers and service users; press articles and
Main findings
The contrasting characteristics and fortunes of the four programmes are summarised in Table 1. Whilst there were many differences between them, it is clear that – whatever the setting and the particulars of the programme – implementation of a nationally shared electronic summary record is a highly complex challenge which requires multiple overlapping tasks (Box 1). These implementation challenges were common to all four programmes, but they played out very differently because of significant
Conclusions
This secondary data analysis has demonstrated the added value of reflecting collectively on the successes and disappointments across the shared electronic record programmes in the four UK countries. We hope that the lessons described above will also resonate outside the UK to countries such as the USA, which are just beginning to implement regional and national electronic records [28].
The very different fortunes of the four programmes were only partly explained by differences in the
Author contributions
All authors contributed to analysing the data, drafting the manuscript and checking the final version of the paper.
Funding
No specific funding was allocated for the secondary data analysis or writing of this paper. The research study into the Summary Care Record programme was funded by a research grant from the UK National Institute of Health Research (ref CFHEP002 and 007) and the Medical Research Council (‘Healthcare Electronic Records in Organisations’, ref 07/133). The other countries’ evaluations received no external funding.
Competing interests
The authors’ interests in the different technologies and programmes are set out in the paper. In brief, TG evaluated the English programme; LM was involved in delivering the Scottish and Northern Irish programmes; JW was involved in delivering the Scottish programme and GT was involved in delivering the Welsh programme. No authors have personal finanical interests in the technologies described.
References (29)
Implementing information systems in health care organizations: myths and challenges
Int. J. Med. Inf.
(2001)- et al.
Giving control to patients
Br. J. Gen. Pract.
(2008) - et al.
Patients’ attitudes to the Summary Care Record and Health Space: qualitative study
BMJ
(2008) - et al.
Sharing summary care records. Results from Scottish emergency care summary
BMJ
(2010) - et al.
The “meaningful use” regulation for electronic health records
N. Engl. J. Med.
(2010) - et al.
Will information and communication technology disrupt the health system and deliver on its promise?
Med. J. Aust.
(2010) Federal Auditor General's Report on Canada Health Infoway
Health Law Can.
(2010)An Information Revolution
(2010)- et al.
Adoption and non-adoption of a shared electronic summary record in England
BMJ
(2010) - et al.
Why National eHealth Programs need dead philosophers: Wittgensteinian reflections on policymakers’ reluctance to learn from history
Milbank Q.
(2011)
‘Never heard of it’ – understanding the public's lack of awareness of a new electronic patient record
Health Expect.
Database State
The Devil's in the Detail: Final Report of the Independent Evaluation of the Summary Care Record and HealthSpace programmes
Diffusion of innovations in service organisations: systematic literature review and recommendations for future research
Milbank Q.
Cited by (48)
Researching big IT in the UK National Health Service: A systematic review of theory-based studies
2024, International Journal of Medical InformaticsBlockchain: A novel paradigm for secured data transmission in telemedicine
2021, Wearable Telemedicine Technology for the Healthcare Industry: Product Design and DevelopmentAn overview of electronic personal health records
2018, Health Policy and TechnologyAnticipation of organizational change
2018, Journal of Organizational Change ManagementIntegrating electronic healthcare records of armed forces personnel: Developing a framework for evaluating health outcomes in England, Scotland and Wales
2018, International Journal of Medical InformaticsCitation Excerpt :Major differences were observed when coding the reason for the visit to A&E; unlike APC, which utilises the ICD-10 coding system across the combined dataset, A&E does not use a national standard. For example, within England, care providers utilise a local coding system, ICD-10 coding or a NHS England coding standard [29,30]. A patient-level EHR dataset was constructed using a five-stage integration process.
Constructing a nationwide interoperable health information system in China: The case study of Sichuan Province
2017, Health Policy and TechnologyCitation Excerpt :Although the strategies adopted by many countries seem increasingly converge to the middle-out approach, the challenges to achieve nationwide interoperability vary from country to country, depending on the political system, healthcare governing policy, population and geographical distribution, and social, economic, and cultural conditions [13,18]. In general, if healthcare systems are funded via public schemes that mandate all healthcare providers participate in HIS interoperability, then many challenges occur during the implementation process, which include technological selection, human engagement, system usability, managerial effectiveness, and uncertain political risks [7,15,19,20]. On the contrary, if healthcare systems are funded by private stakeholders (e.g., payers, not-for-profit organizations) or healthcare providers, then the implementation and adoption of HIE technologies and standards becomes relatively challenging because conflicting interests among multiple stakeholders are hard to be reconciled, and, subsequently, the planned HIS system ended with partial and limited interoperability due to inconsistent standards, lack of financial incentives, or unproven privacy and security protection [5,19,21].