Consultation begins on national GP data extraction

02 Jun 2008

The Information Centre has announced it is beginning consultations with stakeholders for a new data extraction system that will record and analyse local GP activities to improve patient care and target NHS resources more effectively.

GP extraction service (GPES) will be a centrally-managed primary care data extraction and analysis tool which will obtain information from all NHS GP practices in England.

The consultation with stakeholders is being led by the NHS Information Centre and NHS Connecting for Health with a view to procuring the new system.

Tim Straughan, chief executive of the NHS Information Centre, said: “GPES will provide very real benefits for patients. We are however aware of the importance of ensuring the system integrates seamlessly with existing GP databases and we take extremely seriously the need to protect the confidentiality of patient data.”

Straughan added: “Safeguards and information governance arrangements are being put into place to ensure that any extracted data is only used for the pre-declared intended purpose. We will continue to consult and inform the GPC, RCGP and the GP Joint IT Committee about future progress and work with them to ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place.”

The IC Says that GPES will deliver benefits to patients and the NHS by significantly increasing the accessibility and availability of primary care data to support the commissioning of local care services to secure health improvements and address inequalities

GPES will also help to improve national and local public health surveillance to target areas of need, and improve the coverage and quality of current primary care audits, and inform the future allocation of resources.

An IC spokesperson added: “Overall, such as system should help to improve the efficiency and outcomes of patient care, and reduce the cost of current and proposed data extractions, better managing extracts so that there is no disruption to the primary use of clinical systems. It should also save GP’s time by lessening current administrative burdens.”

A two phase approach to GPES is envisaged. In phase one, GPES will be used by the NHS Information Centre to provide census extracts for the DH and for arms length bodies such as the Health Protection Agency.

These extracts will serve to meet a range of needs, including disease surveillance, clinical audit and support for commissioning patient services.

In phase two, GPES may be made available to recognised NHS bodies, including strategic health authorities, primary care trusts and practice-based commissioning groups, so they can obtain local data extracts to address specific local issues.

It will operate under strict principles laid out by the IC. All extracts will need the prior approval of an independent advisory board that will include patient representatives and representatives from the GP professional bodies. Data extracts will also be subject to ethical approval.

Each general practitioner will be able to view the results of each extraction from their clinical system, and individual GPs will be offered the opportunity to opt out of each extraction.

The purpose for which data will be used is to be determined at the outset for each extraction, and will be subject to the approvals process. The data will not be released for any other purpose. A limit will also be set on the length of time that the data is retained.

Gordon Hextall, chief operating officer at NHS Connecting for Health, said: "NHS Connecting for Health is pleased to be working in partnership with the NHS Information Centre and the Department of Health on this important project.

“The General Practice extraction service is a valid project and we are confident that working together, we can help develop a system that is safe, secure and of great value to GPs, their patients and the NHS as a whole.”

Link

GPES

Joe Fernandez

Reader's Comments

Tertiary Uses Service?

02 Jun 08 10:01

I am having one of those "can someone please explain in terms a simpleton like me can understand" moments.

>>The Secondary Uses Service is the single repository of person and care event level data relating to the NHS care of patients, which is used for management and clinical purposes other than direct patient care....

In time, it is intended that the data managed within SUS should cover NHS-commissioned care provided in all settings (primary, community, and acute), including that provided for the NHS by the independent sector.<<

http://www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/systemsandservices/sus

Is this a tacit admission that NPfIT's SUS will now never extend to primary care data?

Can anyone point to a single part of the original Output Based Specification vision of cross-care setting integration that remains?

The suppliers got there first

02 Jun 08 11:21

So we are to have SUS for secondary care, and GPES for primary, with no visible link, will they even be stored in the same codes? EMIS have been uploading SUS data onto their Web enterprise and mapping it to SNOMED alongside primary care data for over a year so searches and reports can be run across both - with plans to open up to any clinical system supplier interested in joining in.

Re:The suppliers got there first

02 Jun 08 12:43

Could that be part of the problem? If you look at the record, we have had quite a lot of things canceled - simply because they were not under the total control of the centre - e.g. free supply of the Drugs and Therapeutics bulletin. (instead of this, there is a whole new system being developed: surely if there is a need, purchasing fully developed systems would make sense - and be cheaper?) Apart from the desire to establish control over GP practice data, what is the motivation here? There is sufficient data for PBR and PBC already once SUS manages to improve the quality of secondary care data & what additional data can be supplied to justify the expense of yet another addition to the already highly expensive (and under-performing) government IT? (not just NPfIT - think of the NHS University, MTAS, NHS UK (which had to be relaunched as Patient Choice - which was filled with equally inaccurate information). I could go on. What is wrong with HPA information from respected and trusted organisations such as QResearch? Is there anything wrong with looking at the resources already available - and defining the purpose of the project - before going into consultation about how to implement it? Hm. could EHI do a FOI request for the PID (Project Initiation Document) - or would that also be "Commercially confidential"?

Qsurveillance

11 Jun 08 20:17

I think this might be a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing!

QSurveillance is a validated near real time surveillance system which is run as a not-for-profit partnership (QRessearch) by the University of Nottingham and EMIS (which suppliers 60% of clinical computer systems for general practice). QSurveillance collects automatically data every day from over 3,500 general practices each of whom freely contributes data to a centralised repository. QSurveillance currently covers a population of 23 million patients from across the UK making it the largest real time surveillance system of its kind worldwide. All the data is aggregated by age and sex so there is no risk to patient confidentiality. Initially designed to alert to and manage a flu pandemic for the Health Protection Agency & Department of Health, its now reports on a wide range of infectious and non infectious disease indicators with reporting by age and sex down to PCT level. Qsurveillance meets information needs during emerging urgent situations (including drug safety). For example it provided regular surveillance bulletins following the Buncefield fuel depot explosion (2006), the Quedgely fire (2007) and the Avon floods (2007).