On an average weekday in England, there are over1 million consultations with general practitioners. The limited data on errors and patient harm in primary care obstructs the development of strategies to improve patient safety. In an article published recently in Family Practice, Carmen Tsang and colleagues reported the results of a systematic review to determine the types of adverse events that are routinely recorded in primary care. They found that there is limited use of routinely collected data to measure adverse events in primary care despite large volumes of data generated in the electronic patient records now used by most general practitioners in the UK.
As part of a session on primary care data in the Health Informatics module on the Imperial Master of Public Health Programme, I asked students to work in two groups to present arguments for and against the NHS Care.Data programme. Care.Data is an NHS programme that will extract data from the medical records held by general practitioners (GPs) in England. The Care.Data programme takes advantage of the very high level of use of electronic medical records by GPs in England. After extraction, data will be uploaded to the NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC). The data will then be used for functions such as health care planning, monitoring disease patterns and research. The programme has been controversial with proponents arguing that the programme will bring many benefits for the NHS and the population of England; and opponents arguing it is a major breach of privacy. You can view the two presentations to help inform you further about these arguments: Arguments for th
Comments