Welcome Guest | Login | Register | Why Register?
HOME | CONTACT | NEWS ARCHIVE | DOCUMENT LIBRARY | FEATURES | COMMENT & ANALYSIS | EVENTS | RESEARCH REPORTS | CASE STUDIES | FORUMS

Trafford enables GPs and hospitals to share EPR

27 Feb 2007

Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust has developed a new electronic patient record system with assistance from software developers, Graphnet Health, and booking specialists, Ultragenda.

The new system collects and shares information across the local health community and works alongside the trusts’ existing iSoft Patient Administration System.

Trafford’s head of IM&T, John Bain, told E-Health Insider: “We have been working with Graphnet for some time now in creating a system that would integrate records into one single patient file. We were already well into working on the Information for Health level 3 (clinical activity support - electronic clinical orders, results reporting, prescribing, multi-professional care pathways) and so continued to work on a system that would let us share common patient records across the trust.

“We have spent the last couple of years ensuring the system does what we need it to, in terms of integrating our existing systems and creating a single master patient index. This has included some careful data cleansing to ensure that data is up to date and correct.”

Bain said that the system suited the needs of the trust and supported the National Programme for IT’s ethos to connect up all patient information across NHS organisations.

“We spent almost three years making the system available to all trust staff members and have now managed to interconnect all the systems. Staff can use it to sort outpatients off the patient administration system or to schedule appointments using choose and book, thanks to software from Ultragenda.”

The new system will allow GPs to take information and electronically feed it to other systems in the trust domain. GPs control what patient information can be collected, which currently excludes sensitive information about sexual or mental health. Patients can opt-out of the system if they want to.

Similar systems are already in use in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight  and user studies at Poole have showed that electronic patient records can save time.

Bain added: “GPs are now enthused with this new system. They are now sitting on the edge of innovation in being able to share information across both primary care and secondary care. The system has been helped by the deployment of choose and book, which is allowing us to offer patients a choice.

“We are beginning to see something with live information across one patient record over several systems. Nightly downloads ensure that a patient’s record is kept up to date with basic information on prescriptions, diagnosis and allergies and staff can gain access to that data with the right permission access.”

Access to the system is password protected and data access rights are determined by the user’s level of authority.

It means that, at the touch of a button, hospital doctors could have all of a patient’s relevant health information accessible on a single record, which will help with making a speedy, accurate diagnosis and providing the patient with the most appropriate treatment.

The trusts’ medical director, Dr Simon Musgrave, said: “As hospital doctors, it is our responsibility to diagnose and treat patients quickly and appropriately. Having this system in place gives us an amazing amount of vital details about individuals which helps us do a better job.”

GP Dr Tony Kaye, added: “From a GP perspective we now have the facility to access the hospital IT system at any time to find up to date clinical information about patients registered at our practice. We are using the system on a regular daily basis – it means we have test results available to us which have been requested at the hospital.

“We can therefore pass this information to patients, or act on it more quickly. We can also see hospital letters sometimes before we have received them through the normal channels, which can be very helpful. In addition we can also access information when our patients are in-patients on the wards, and monitor their progress.”

Links

Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust

Graphnet Health

Ultragenda

© 2007 E-HEALTH-MEDIA LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

1

Best solution i ever saw !!

28 Feb 07 08:20

What has been done in Trafford is marvelous I have seen the system last week It realy shows full integration of GP and Hospital information in a very user friendly way , I respect the efforts of Trafford hospitals and community, GP health services in reachin this mile stone

If I may say so as a Dutch Health Innovation professional , if the NHS would have put their money on professionals like in Trafford and in software like that of GRAPNET and ULTRAGENDA , the UK would have been much further in the ICT in Health programme and for much less money and pain than the present Central bulky initiative

My company has a wide understanding of Health solutions in all continents , but this is great and easy to use !!!

Regards Leo Vollebregt CEO, InnoSana ( innovators in eHealth) The Netherlands


2

step in the right direction?

stressfreedave@hotmail.com

28 Feb 07 19:28

Whilst I am not a fan of cntralised records I think the idea Trafford has come up with is good. It gives patients the choice of opting out which is something that is a really good idea (although I would have thought it possible to ask the patient when they seen their GP if they want to opt-in, I'm assuming the patient is being told by their GP that their info is being shared). There were some questions about it though. When they say a common patient record, does that mean all doctor/nurses have access to the same information? That is one of the things I do not like about the spine as I have this thing about having to tell all doctors/nurses I see my information. Is it possible for the patient to put some information on and have it available to some but not others? There is mention of authority levels but I have been in practices whare that means admin staff find out about things like rape/abuse and if you want to see the asthma nurse you must allow full access (i.e. for a review to be carried out you MUST allow her to know if you have ever been raped, had sexual problems, STDs/STIs and if you have had an abortion). I would have thought hospitals would have sent the GP the information, why get the GP to go looking for it? I would have thought GPs would send the consultants the relevant information on referal, why dothey need to go looking for it? Does anybody else have access to it? For example is it sent to SUS, do people other than the doctors/nurses treating the patient see the medical data where it contains the patients name, address ect?


3

At What Cost and Why?

02 Mar 07 10:54

Has this been done at Trafford as NPfIT is either not working or is too slow being rolled out? It sounds good but indicates to me that local control and systems work better than national. EPR/EHR/N3 is centrally funded and part of a national programme. I suspect that this isnt.


4

Too local or not?

phoenix.4ever@ntlworld.com

02 Mar 07 12:07

Trafford community and GPs now link to Trafford Acute Trust. Does this extend to other hospitals that Trafford residents get referred to, e.g MRI, Wythenshawe, Withington etc. Does this look at the bigger picture or is it purely tunnel visioned to TGH? Are we getting VFM? Any clues? Curious, Trafford Resident.


5

Solid pre-existing work

02 Mar 07 14:17

I work nowhere near Trafford, but know the product, and I know Trafford have been at this for some time.

In absence of sensible delivery from CfH, Trafford and others have continued to develop their existing systems. In my cluster, GP access is excluded from the NCRS deal, but already exists. Better surely to deliver the integration that is really needed for the majority of the population than do nothing whilst awaiting national perfection.

The VFM debate is always predicated on what the anticipated lifetime is (uncertainty from delays to CfH programme), and uncertainties assessed in a very subjective way through a risk analysis.

But if real local money has been committed, it is likely to indicate a short payback, in quality/efficiency improvements (though very rarely cash releasing terms).


6

Too local or not? II

nhstechie@btinternet.com

03 Mar 07 22:30

I would guess that Trafford chose this path because, quite simply and for whatever reasons, CfH/CSC were unable to deliver the functionality required within the necessary timescales. The alternative would have been to do nothing until 2008/2009, or to lose functionality and go live with iPM.

The products used are relatively inexpensive and any IG issues would have needed to be addressed by the local Caldicott Guardian - as is appropriate.

Not a perfect solution - but surely better than the "do-nothing" option?


7

I would have thought ....

09 Mar 07 00:20

"I would have thought hospitals would have sent the GP the information, "

In practice, it often takes 3 weeks or more for the notes to be typed up, printed off and posted to the GP. It is easy to over-estimate the standards currently in place within the NHS - especially if you work outside or in one of the very few Acute Trusts with reasonable IT systems and discharge processes.

Search
News Features Jobs Newsletters
latest forum posts
latest forum posts
Top jobs
More
Top jobs

Featured_recruiters
Featured_recruiters