Search the hub
Showing results for tags 'Electronic Health Record'.
-
Content Article
Physician burnout persists in USA. In part, this burnout is believed to be driven by the Electronic Health Record (EHR) and its fraught role in the clinical work of physicians. Artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled healthcare technologies are often promoted on the basis of their promise to reduce burnout by introducing efficiencies into clinical work, particularly related to EHR utilisation and documentation. Where documentation is perceived as the problem, AI scribes are offered as the solution. This essay looks closely at existing studies of AI scribes in clinical context and draws upon experience and understanding of healthcare delivery and the EHR to anticipate how AI may related to provider burnout. The authors find that it is premature to assert that AI tools will reduce physician burnout. Considering the integration of AI scribes into Learning Health Systems healthcare delivery becomes a starting point for understanding the challenges faced in safely adopting AI tools more generally, with attention to the healthcare workforce and patients. The authors found that it is not a foregone conclusion that AI-enabled healthcare technologies, in their current state and application, will lead to improved healthcare delivery and reduced burnout. Instead, this is an open question that demands rigorous evaluation and high standards of evidence before we restructure the work of physicians and redefine the care of our patients. -
Content Article
Most of us will have a lifelong NHS GP record, as well as any individual records held by other NHS services about our healthcare, such as hospitals, dentists and even pharmacies, as they start to deliver some consultations. The NHS is investing resources and funding into making patient records paperless and improving patient information sharing between services. However, coroners have repeatedly issued warnings about inadequate information sharing in the NHS, with some patients dying because clinicians could not access important details about their needs. But is the information in patient records correct in the first place? Healthwatch reviewed recent feedback on patient records and found people reporting alarming issues with medical records. To estimate the extent to which inaccurate records are widespread, they commissioned BMG Research to conduct a nationally representative survey of 1,800 adults between 24 and 27 March 2025. Concerningly, the survey found that nearly one in four (23%) adults have noticed inaccuracies or missing details in their medical records before. In most cases, people said they had noticed missing information, though some said their records contained incorrect information. A quarter (26%) of those who have noticed inaccuracies in their records said their personal details were wrong. Many elements of NHS care involve individual staff members verbally carrying out ‘positive identification checks’ with patients, using date of birth information, especially if the person’s NHS number is unavailable at the time. A national safety body has found that misidentification can have serious consequences, such as the wrong surgery being carried out. Other errors include inaccurate records of medications, diagnoses or treatments. Healthwatch recommend the following actions. Better record keeping. These stories and figures highlight the urgent need for improved record-keeping practices. This could be achieved by promoting relevant guidance and regulations by professional regulators, as well as better interoperability to ensure records are shared effectively. The government’s ambition to have a single patient record should help address this. Promotion of people’s rights to get records amended. People's right to do this needs to be clearer, along with the legal reasons why services may still have to retain a record of contested information. It is also important to make more people aware that they can complain to the NHS or the Information Commissioner’s Office. Clearer guidance for patients about how to change incorrect records. People told us how difficult it is to amend or remove inaccurate information in their records. Related reading on the hub: The digitalising of patient records — why patients MUST be involved- Posted
-
- Electronic Health Record
- Electronic Patient Record
- (and 1 more)
-
Content Article
One of the most transformative changes to the US health care system in the last few decades has been the widespread adoption of electronic health record (EHR) systems and online patient portals. The patient portal has improved patient access to medical records and facilitated direct communication between patients and their health care teams, improving patient satisfaction, enhancing health care use and increasing treatment adherence. The implementation of online patient portals has altered clinical practice workflows considerably, allowing the streamlining of interappointment communication. However, direct messaging between patients and their health care team is also having a negative impact on healthcare professionals. Increasing reliance on portal messaging as a primary form of communication and more patients using portals increased the volume of messages being sent. Work associated with portal messaging has fallen primarily on doctors, and many of them end up using time outside of clinical work hours to respond. Limited access to appointments has led to more complex and time-consuming messages. This trend is causing higher levels of staff burnout and female doctors are disproportionately affected. This article looks at the issues and potential solutions.- Posted
-
- Patient portal
- Communication
- (and 5 more)
-
Content Article
This is the second in a series of investigations exploring why medications intended to be provided to patients were not provided. Patients who need medications can suffer harm if these are not provided. This investigation explored the systems and processes in place to support staff when a patient who is usually taking an anticoagulant undergoes a procedure. An anticoagulant is a medication that reduces the ability of a patient’s blood to clot. The investigation also explored the role played by electronic prescribing and medication administration (ePMA) systems and electronic patient record (EPR) systems in supporting care in this area. The investigation explored a patient safety event involving a man aged 87 who was admitted to hospital. He usually took an anticoagulant medication (apixaban) to reduce the risk of having a stroke. A stroke is a serious medical condition that occurs when the blood supply to part of a person’s brain is lost. The patient was taken to hospital with shortness of breath and nose bleeds. He was transferred from the emergency department to a medical ward while waiting for a procedure. The medical team paused the patient’s regular apixaban, initially because of his nose bleeds. The apixaban continued to be paused while the patient was waiting for his procedure. However, delays to the procedure taking place meant that apixaban was not given for a total of 10 days. After the procedure, the apixaban was not restarted as intended. Two days after the procedure the patient had a stroke and later died. Medical staff needed to make informed prescribing decisions, balancing the patient’s risk of developing a blood clot, his everyday risk of bleeding, with the risk of bleeding from the required medical procedure. The investigation explored the range of complex, dynamic and interacting clinical and wider hospital factors that led to the difficulties in managing the patient’s anticoagulation. Findings The patient’s apixaban was appropriately paused in the emergency department. Past clinical information about the patient that would have supported anticoagulant risk assessments was not easily available to staff. Variations in the hospital care processes supported some working practices, but created uncertainty about when the patient’s procedure could happen. This made dynamic clinical decision making challenging. A lack of specialist nursing and/or administrative support limited the ability for respiratory referrals to be followed up by the respiratory team in a timely way. There was no reassessment of the ongoing decision to pause the patient’s apixaban when the procedure did not happen as expected. It was clear to staff that the patient’s apixaban was paused on the ePMA system, but the system did not prompt staff to re-review the paused apixaban. An assessment of the risks and benefits of pausing the patient’s apixaban was not documented which prevented a shared understanding of the decision for other staff involved in the patient’s care. Workforce challenges created conditions on the acute general medical ward that limited the resources available to follow up on the patient's medication status and delayed discussions around the patient’s transfer to the respiratory ward. A mismatch between demand and capacity within the respiratory service prevented the patient being transferred to the respiratory ward or receiving regular specialty respiratory input while he was being cared for on the acute general medical ward. Some local clinical guidance available to staff on the management of patients’ anticoagulant medication was overdue for a review and did not reflect updated national guidance. Local clinical guidance was sometimes hard to access using the Trust’s computer systems and some staff were unaware of relevant guidance that was in place. There were no cues in the post-procedure documentation to prompt staff to consider restarting the patient’s anticoagulation medication. Phased implementation of the Trust’s EPR system meant that sometimes staff were duplicating entries across paper and electronic record systems. Local level learning prompts for acute hospitals HSSIB investigations include local-level learning where this may help organisations and staff identify and think about how to respond to specific patient safety concerns at the local level. The following prompts are provided by HSSIB to help acute hospitals to improve the safety of patients who are taking anticoagulation medication who need to have a procedure. These prompts may also be useful in other settings. Anticoagulant prescribing How does your organisation support staff to identify and document decision making at critical decision points where anticoagulation should be reviewed? How does your patient record system support staff to document and clearly display the rationale behind any decision to pause anticoagulant medication? Does your organisation have systems and processes in place that support regular risk assessment of anticoagulants that have been paused? Does your organisation have a process for ensuring that guidelines that cross-refer to other relevant guidelines are reviewed together to ensure they provide consistent advice? How do you ensure that all members of the multidisciplinary team with relevant expertise are included in clinical guideline reviews? Does your organisation have processes in place to ensure that when new evidence on newer anticoagulants becomes available it is considered for inclusion in local guidance as soon as possible? How does your organisation support staff to find and readily access anticoagulation related guidelines? Care processes supporting inpatients on anticoagulants Do your organisation’s bed management meetings include a review of patients who have been waiting more than 24 hours for transfer to a specialty ward? Does your organisation have effective processes in place to ensure inpatients accepted by a speciality, but awaiting a specialty bed, receive a specialty review on a regular basis? Does your organisation have a process in place for the prioritisation of inpatient transfer to specialty services? Does your organisation have a process in place for the prioritisation of inpatients who need investigations (including imaging) and procedures? Do your organisation’s post procedure processes include a prompt to review anticoagulation? EPR/ePMA systems supporting anticoagulation Does your organisation ensure it is easy for staff to access information in patients’ records relevant to decision making about anticoagulant medication? Does your ePMA system identify patients with paused time-critical medication that may warrant a review? How does your organisation consider factors relating to equipment which may affect the successful implementation of EPR/ePMA systems?- Posted
-
- Medication
- Investigation
- (and 5 more)
-
Content Article
In this podcast interview series, NHS whistleblower Peter Duffy and Patient Safety Learning’s Chief Executive Helen Hughes explore how the healthcare system responds when its staff raise concerns about patient safety. In each episode, Helen and Peter interview someone who has spoken up about patient safety issues in healthcare organisations, or who works to help staff raise concerns where they see unsafe care. In this episode, Peter and Helen speak to consultant endocrinologist Gordon Caldwell, who retired early from the NHS after speaking up about patient safety concerns in his hospital. Gordon shares his experience of raising concerns about unsafe staffing levels while working as a clinical lead and how this led to extreme stress and the decision to retire years before he had planned to. They discuss the importance of transparency, team work and clear record-keeping processes to ensure patients are kept safe and Gordon outlines how lack of accessible patient health records hinders decision-making and can lead to avoidable harm. They also look at how target-led approaches and financial incentives have led to cultural changes in healthcare organisations over the past few decades. Subscribe to our YouTube podcast to keep up to date with the latest episodes. View a transcript of this interview Read a blog from Peter and Helen about the interview series- Posted
-
- Doctor
- Speaking up
- (and 5 more)
-
Content Article
Ensuring good practice in patient record keeping is essential in the delivery of healthcare. Here Kennedys, a law firm, provide an overview of areas that are central to effective practice in record keeping.- Posted
-
- Electronic Patient Record
- Electronic Health Record
- (and 2 more)
-
Content Article
In this article for the Journal of mHealth, Victoria Betton looks at the importance of a user-centred design approach to developing electronic patient records (EPRs). She highlights four key principles, based on human factors, that should be considered when designing an EPR: Start early with user needs—take time to build user needs and goals into your thinking from the start of your business case and keep them at the core of your requirements. Use observation, interviews and analysis of data (for example, clinical incident reports) to give you the insights you need. Bake in adoption from the get-go—make sure there is sufficient resource and time in the business case to engage and involve EPR users at each stage of the process, from defining needs through to procurement, implementation and ongoing optimisation over time. Get it right before you configure—use wireframes and simulation to test out before you start to configure the EPR. Make it as easy as possible for users to enter data in the right place the first time. Iterate—create a process that allows for ongoing iteration, learning and optimisation of the EPR. Don’t send floor walkers in for two weeks and ask them to leave. Ongoing adaptation and improvement are key.- Posted
-
- Electronic Health Record
- Electronic Patient Record
- (and 3 more)
-
Content Article
The digitalising of patient records — why patients MUST be involved
Anonymous posted an article in Health records and plans
In this blog, Tina* discusses the patient safety issues that can occur with electronic patient records, highlighting how easily errors can occur in a patient's record but how difficult they are to fix, and why patients must be involved in the digitalising of their own records. Tina gives her perspective as a clinician but also her personal perspective as a patient who has had stigmatising material propagated throughout the system while important clinical information was excluded from her record. Errors and irrelevant information on my record A couple of years ago, when I first had access to the NHS app, I noted that on the allergy section of my record it said I was allergic to aspirin. I am not. It also had my weight down as over 120 kg when I weigh half that. I contacted my GP at that time and those errors were corrected. Imagine my surprise when I am at an appointment with a consultant gynaecologist to see on the computer screen that my medical history contains nothing relevant to the consultation. Instead, there are 15 lines of incidents relating to a long period of depression almost two decades ago. These include ‘suicidal ideation’, ‘deliberate-self harm’, ‘overdose’, ‘chronic depression’, ‘wound’, ‘admission to psychiatric unit’, ‘under section’, ‘depression’, ‘self-harm’, ‘admission to psychiatric unit’, ‘first ECT’, ‘ECT’, ‘self-inflicted injury’, ‘recurrent depression’, ‘ ‘suicide attempt’… the date order is wrong, several lines are repeated. There are also a few entries that are irrelevant, like ‘fracture left radius’ that happened when I was 12, and ‘arthritis knee-left’—I struggle to think when I've ever had arthritis of my knee. I am a doctor and work at this hospital and though I am seeking my own medical care, this consultant is also my colleague. Do I want her to know about this time in my life? Is this relevant to my medical condition now, 20 years later? I am potentially facing abdominal surgery and relevant information has been excluded from the list: A serious anaesthetic problem. Bilateral anterior cingulotomy (a brain surgery). Appendicectomy. Cholecystectomy. There is also no mention of the multiple operations on my feet, but that’s fine… at the moment feet aren’t the problem. However, I am alarmed and I feel as though my privacy has been violated. Impossible to fix What now? I don't know what to do and I ask one of my work colleagues who knows more than I do about data entry. Through a series of emails, I am advised that because the referral originated from my GP surgery, any corrections have to come from there. I also discover that to get the information changed, the GP needs to send an official letter of ‘redaction’ to the Trust. I contact the GP practice and write a letter. It takes another three calls to finally speak to the practice manager and explain the situation. She agrees this is less than satisfactory and says she will speak to the GP. I receive a phone call from the GP who is profusely apologetic and explains that the referral is a template which is pre-populated from the digital record. The GP agrees that irrelevant information has been sent with the referral and relevant clinical history has been excluded. I tell the GP that I have no problem with a reference to the severe and prolonged seven-year episode of treatment resistant depression or that I had ECT and was hospitalised when suicidal. But the GP thinks that this level of detail is inappropriate for a gynaecological referral since I have no mental health problems at the present time. Through an exchange of correspondence, we come to a joint decision about what is and isn’t relevant in my medical history. The practice assures me that a letter of redaction has been sent to my hospital and the new referral with the agreed clear, relevant past medical history will replace what was originally sent. At the next appointment, nothing has changed. I call the GP and they confirm that the letter of redaction has been sent. I contact the clinical data manager and they tell me that it will be acted on ‘soon’. Since I was also referred to a tertiary provider elsewhere, a letter of redaction has also been sent to that hospital. I am concerned because I have been scheduled for surgery and the fact that the crucial information about a rare genetic enzyme deficiency that affects an anaesthetic drug is missing from my digital record. Thankfully it is put right in time. But it is not over yet. I have a referral to the physio department; this time the foot surgeries are relevant as I also have a peripheral neuropathy. To my dismay, on record is the same medical history that was displayed that first time I had to get this sorted out. I meet with my GP and the practice manager together. The GP has now gone through every letter in the old ‘Lloyd George folders’ and the information has been coded onto the digital record. The GP explains that some of this information has to be put on the record because it ‘has happened’ and it cannot be removed. But there is an ‘active problem’ list and an ‘inactive problem’ list. The practice has been in touch with the software supplier because they cannot understand why in this instance it is pulling irrelevant information, not even in date order, from my ‘inactive problem’ list to populate the ‘past medical history’ and failing to pull out what is relevant. This remains unsolved and obviously they are concerned that this may also be going unnoticed for other patients. The only way round this for me is that the practice has decided to put a warning pop-up box on the system that any referrals sent out on my behalf should be thoroughly checked first. But, unfortunately, they realise that the referral to the physio came from a different part of the system and therefore they cannot control it and they cannot put it right either. A patient safety issue I work in the Emergency Department. I am dependent on a patient’s digital record. When I ask questions about medication for instance, they often say to me — “I don’t know, can’t you see my records?” My patient notes are made on a clinical record template on our hospital system. When I access primary care records (EMIS for one county, but another system for the other county), I copy the past medical history (active problem list) and the list of current and repeat medication and allergies. I paste the results onto the relevant parts of my personal digitalised notes. BUT I also talk to my patients and have discovered an alarming number of errors. I cannot be sure that patient safety is maintained if I were to incorrectly enter an allergy on Trakcare because, at my place of work, the ‘safety feature’ does not allow it to be deleted. So when I say to my patient, “I see from your GP record that you have a penicillin allergy” and they answer, “no, that’s always been wrong. My brother is the one with the penicillin allergy.” I worry. It is not uncommon to discover erroneous information contained on the digitalised record and what do I do? I suggest that the patient let his GP know, he says he already has, many times, and nothing has changed. I think of my own experience and I sympathise. But uncorrected, my patient may be deprived of treatment with a useful antibiotic if he should need it, and possibly his brother may be given a drug he is allergic to. One data entry error is replicated throughout the entire system. In my own case, there have been multiple errors: irrelevant, stigmatising and highly confidential data went to those who do not need to know, while relevant clinical information was excluded. How does that make me feel? Stigma is not dead and I want to be able to be confident in seeking medical care when I need it. There was also a more obvious patient safety element: my allergies were incorrect — I am not allergic to aspirin and the anaesthetic drug, suxamethonium, which I cannot metabolise properly, was not included on the list. Patients MUST be involved in the digitalising of their records. I see writing in the medical press where doctors are not in favour of their patients viewing their records. I believe that is not just paternalistic but also a dangerous anachronism. These are our records, and we must make sure that information held about us is both correct and relevant. Related reading on the hub: NHS England warns electronic patient record could pose ‘serious risks to patient safety’: what can we learn?- Posted
- 3 comments
-
- Electronic Health Record
- Person-centred care
- (and 4 more)
-
Content Article
The introduction of the electronic health record was heralded as a technology solution to improve care quality and efficiency, but these tools have contributed to increased administrative burden and burnout for clinicians. Today, artificial intelligence is receiving much of the same attention and promises as electronic health records. Can healthcare learn from the failures of electronic health records to maximise the potential of artificial intelligence?- Posted
-
- AI
- Electronic Health Record
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Content Article
Electronic health record (EHR) nudges are a common way to subtly change clinician behaviour (e.g., prompt for immunisations). This review summarizes the association between EHR nudges and health outcomes in primary care. Results show nudges improve specific aspects of healthcare quality, but most studies reported only process measures—whether the nudge was accepted— not the impact on patient safety.- Posted
-
- Electronic Health Record
- Primary care
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
News Article
'Absolute chaos' as GP practices across England hit by EMIS outage
Patient Safety Learning posted a news article in News
GP practices across England faced ‘chaos' on 4 November after an EMIS IT system outage cut off access to appointment booking systems and left clinicians unable to see patient records. EMIS is the most widely-used GP practice IT system in England, in use at more than half of practices across the country - and practices as far apart as London, Cheshire and Bristol were reporting an outage on the morning of Monday 4 November. Dr Selvaseelan Selvarajah, a GP at St Andrews Health Centre in East London told GPonline that staff first flagged the issue at around 7.30am on 4 November. He said: ‘We came in this morning, it worked for a few seconds and then there was the wheel of doom. We restarted the system a few times and it still did not work, then we raised it with the EMIS team.’ Dr Selvarajah added: ‘Mondays are always busy but this has been chaotic. It is a patient safety issue too, because we have a complex issue of not being able to access medications and hospital letters. EMIS told us that it is unavailable for some users and they are treating it as a high priority issue.' He said that from what he had heard, GP practices across the country had been affected. Read full story (paywalled) Source: GP Online, 4 November 2024- Posted
-
- GP practice
- Technology
- (and 2 more)
-
Content Article
In this podcast episode, hosts Liz Jones and Darren Kilroy from RLDatix speak to Helen Hughes from Patient Safety Learning about how people, technology, and healthcare come together to create great experiences and support patient safety. The Connection: Where Tech Meets Humanity in Healthcare, is a podcast series from RLDatix, which explores the intersection of technology and human-centred care with the health and care sector. Key talking points from the conversation include: the true scope of patient safety why healthcare leaders must prioritise patient safety how to make patient safety everyone's job essential principles for electronic patient record system implementation.- Posted
-
- Organisational culture
- Staff factors
- (and 3 more)
-
Content Article
Patients, particularly those with long term conditions, have a pivotal role in managing their own health, but too often they are left to struggle without the tools to do the job, the most basic of which is being able to view their medical record. In this article, members of the BMJ's patient advisory panel look at variations in patient access to health records, and the nature and number of portals that patients have to use to access this information. They examine the benefits of giving patients access to their health information and argue that providing easy to use portals will allow patients to effectively manage their conditions and advocate for their own health.- Posted
-
- Information sharing
- Patient
- (and 3 more)
-
News Article
Wes Streeting unveils plans for ‘patient passports’ to hold all medical records
Patient Safety Learning posted a news article in News
Wes Streeting is to unveil plans for portable medical records giving every NHS patient all their information stored digitally in one place on Monday, despite fears over breaching privacy and creating a target for hackers. The health secretary is launching a major consultation on the government’s plans to transform the NHS from “analogue to digital” over the next decade. It will offer “patient passports” containing health data that can be swiftly accessed by GPs, hospitals and ambulance services. New laws are also set to be introduced on Wednesday to make patient health records available across all NHS trusts in England. It will speed up patient care, reduce repeat medical tests and minimise medication errors, he said. The digital data bill will standardise information systems across the NHS, making it possible to share electronic records across all parts of the service, and bringing them together in a single patient record on the NHS app. Streeting moved to allay patients’ fears over “big brother” oversight of private records, telling the Guardian that they would be “protected and anonymised” as the government pursued new technological opportunities. He also defended the government’s plan to transform healthcare in England by working with big tech and pharma companies to develop new treatments, saying he would get the “best possible deal” for the NHS. The health secretary told the Guardian the development “will mean the NHS can work hand in hand with the life sciences sector, offering access to our large and diverse set of data”. Read full story Source: The Guardian, 21 October 2024 Related reading on the hub: EPR systems and concerns about patient safety (Patient Safety Learning, 30 May 2024) The digitalising of patient records — why patients MUST be involved- Posted
-
- Electronic Health Record
- Digital health
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
Content Article
Hospitals rely on their electronic health record (EHR) systems to help them provide safe, high quality and efficient health care. However, EHR systems have been found to disrupt clinical workflows and may lead to unintended consequences associated with patient safety. This study sought to explore the differences in staff perceptions of the usability and safety of their hospital EHR system by staff position and length of service. The authors found significant differences in results across staff positions and hospital tenure: In comparison to registered nurses, pharmacists had significantly lower scores for EHR system training. Doctors, hospital management and IT staff were significantly more likely to report high frequency of inaccurate EHR information. Compared to staff with 11 or more years of hospital tenure, new staff had significantly lower scores for EHR system training, but higher scores for EHR support & communication. Dissatisfaction with the EHR system was highest among doctors and staff with 11 or more years tenure at the hospital.- Posted
-
- Electronic Health Record
- Training
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Content Article
New research has revealed what is hampering digital adoption across the NHS, as leaders look to unlock the full potential of technology and usher in the digital revolution. A survey, conducted by NHS Providers, indicates that everything from financial constraints, day-to-day pressures, and obsolete IT infrastructure are hamstringing the health service. This blog from the National Health Executive looks at the barriers, the current digital capability and the next steps.- Posted
-
- Digital health
- Transformation
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
Content Article
University Hospital Derby and Burton NHS Trust (UHDB) partnered with TPXimpact to make an informed choice in procuring the right electronic patient record system for the Ophthalmology team and make recommendations on implementing it successfully.- Posted
-
- Electronic Health Record
- Users
- (and 2 more)
-
Content Article
The usability of an EPR is not a trivial issue. A poorly designed and configured system will have a big impact on everything from productivity to patient safety. Poor usability results in workarounds, including the creation of what is known as shadow IT. That might include spreadsheets, word documents and other background systems that have no governance and create all sorts of unquantified risks. A design-led approach to understanding users' needs is a proven way to making your EPR as usable as possible. This is often undermined when digital transformation is funded by one-off capital injections from the centre which encourages teams to focus on purchasing capital items rather than on optimising their systems. In this article NHS Providers discusses usability, the benefits of investing in learning and development, and shares a case study of optimising your EPR through user experience.- Posted
-
- Electronic Health Record
- Human factors
- (and 2 more)
-
News Article
DHSC to review clinical risk standards for digital health tech
Patient Safety Learning posted a news article in News
The Department of Health and Social Care will launch a consultation on the clinical risk standards for the use of digital health technologies in 2024/2025, the minister for patient safety has confirmed. In a letter to Patient Safety Learning, Baroness Gillian Merron said there will be a review of standards DCB0129 and DCB0160, which provide guidelines to help healthcare providers manage and mitigate risks associated with healthcare IT systems. She wrote to the charity in response its report, ‘Electronic patient record systems: Putting patient safety at the heart of implementation’, published on 31 July 2024, which sets out “significant patient safety risks” relating to EPR rollouts in the NHS. In a letter dated 17 September 2024, seen by Digital Health News, Baroness Merron said that clinical risk standards play a “crucial role” in patient safety when using EPRs. “The standards, published in 2012, require organisations to ensure that clinical risk management is embedded in the deployment of EPRs and throughout the life cycle of the technology, including version upgrades. “NHS England is responsible for ensuring the continued effectiveness of the clinical risk standards. “A comprehensive review of both standards is planned for 2024/2025, which will involve a public consultation and wide stakeholder engagement,” Baroness Merron said. Helen Hughes, chief executive of Patient Safety Learning, welcomed the forthcoming consultation, adding that it is “vital” that patient safety is at the core of EPR implementation. “We welcome proposed steps by NHSE to undertake further analysis aimed at identifying new and under-recognised patient safety issues relating to EPR systems. “Patient Safety Learning believes there must be transparency in reporting of unintended harm and that such insights lead to learning from EPR implementations, with action taken to directly support front line clinicians in their work and the delivery of safe care. “It is also important that there are robust safety standards in digital health to keep apace with new technologies as they evolve. “These standards should be accompanied by strong quality assurance and accountability mechanisms with patient safety at their core,” Hughes said. Read full story Source: Digital Health, 30 September 2024- Posted
-
- Digital health
- Electronic Health Record
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
News Article
NHSE commissions rapid review of acute trusts’ EPR plans
Patient Safety Learning posted a news article in News
Beverley Bryant, former director of digital transformation at NHS England, and joint chief digital information officer at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College Hospital NHS FT, is undertaking a rapid review of electronic patient record (EPR) plans at nine acute NHS trusts. The eight-week review, commissioned by John Quinn, chief information officer at NHSE, is intended to share lessons to help the trusts, which are at various stages of EPR journeys, ranging from business case development to planning for implementation. The review started in September 2024, with a letter sent to the chief executives of the respective trusts by Quinn and Vin Diwakar, director of the NHSE Transformation Directorate. Quinn told Digital Health News: “Beverley Bryant is supporting NHS England’s frontline digitisation programme to help a number of acute trusts, who are at varying stages of their EPR journey, to overcome any barriers to the successful delivery of their EPR strategies". Read full story Source: Digital Health, 26 September 2024 Related reading on the hub: Electronic patient record systems: Putting patient safety at the heart of implementation NHS England warns electronic patient record could pose ‘serious risks to patient safety’: what can we learn? -
Event
untilThe webinar will be covering: Busting the myths around DSCR’s Pitfalls, tips and tricks Guidance and support for moving suppliers Incorporate changing assured supplier list. Who should attend? These sessions have been designed for adult social care providers in England and are aimed at people who make decisions about the use of technology in care services. This might include: Owners Registered Managers Nurses Senior Care Staff Administrators IT Professionals Quality & Compliance Leads. Register- Posted
-
- Social care
- Electronic Health Record
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Event
Deloitte is excited to announce a follow-up Q/A session to its successful "Safer Electronic Patient Record Implementation" webinar which took place on 18 April. Join this session to hear expert panellists, with first-hand experience in large-scale EPR implementations, answer some insightful questions. Don't miss this opportunity to deepen your understanding for a successful EPR Go-Live. Speakers: Dr Cormac Breen, Chief Clinical Information Officer, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust Jacqui Cooper, RN Chief Nursing Information Officer, Health Innovation Manchester Professor Henry Morriss, Chief Clinical Information Officer, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Consultant Emergency and Intensive Care Medicine Dr Afzal Chaudhry, Executive Chief Clinical Information Officer, Epic Frances Cousins, Digital Health Lead, Deloitte UK Register for the webinar -
Community Post
Hi, we at patient Safety Learning are looking to hold a virtual round table in the last week of June to look at how to improve patient safety related to the implementation of EPRs. If you are a clinician who has been directly involved with the roll out of an EPR, then you could be part of the event. All notes taken at the event will follow Chatham House rules and your participation will not be disclosed outside the round table group if that is your preference. If you'd like to be involved, please contact me (Clive Flashman) directly at [email protected] Many thanks, Clive- Posted
-
1
-
- Electronic Health Record
- Digital health
- (and 3 more)
-
Content Article
This toolkit provides information about how the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Director General conducted recent medical record reviews to identify patient harm. It outlines the decision criteria for adverse events and describes the methods used in the report, 'Adverse Events in Hospitals: A Quarter of Medicare Patients Experienced Harm' in October 2018, building upon a broader series of reports about adverse events in hospitals and other health care settings.- Posted
-
- USA
- Methodology
-
(and 3 more)
Tagged with:
-
Content Article
The Digital Medicines Transformation Portfolio aims to use digital technologies to make prescribing, dispensing and administering medicines everywhere in Wales, easier, safer and more efficient for patients and professionals. It brings together the programmes and projects that will deliver a fully digital prescribing approach in all care settings in Wales. This video outlines the different elements of the portfolio that will be introduced across primary and secondary care, including the Shared Medicines Record, which will store information about a patient's medications all in one place.- Posted
-
- Medication
- Prescribing
- (and 5 more)