 |
 |
Many thanks, Roger: very reassuring - & please congratulate all concerned on their rapid & thorough responses: hope they informed the practices alarmed by NHS England! Could I post this to BCS PHCSG Discuss and on Facebook Primary Healthcare Informatics UK with your & the IT lead's permission? --- Mary Hawking Committee member BCS PHCSG www.phcsg.org Retired from NHS on 31.3.13 because of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 "thinking - independent thinking - is to humans as swimming is to cats: we can do it if we really have to." Mark Earles on Radio 4 PHCSG AGM & Annual Conference 12/13th October 2017 Call for submissions for the 2017 John Perry Prize and Early Career/Student Award now open - see www.phcsg.org On 2017-07-29 11:59, Roger wrote: > Hi Mary > > The IT lead's response follows: > > I've been working with Virgin and ECC to make sure that this hasn't had any knock on effect on the spine etc. > So; > The error has been correct on the affected records (about 450). Virgin have run reports to show all of the incorrect codes are now marked in error and the correct code back dated into the record. I've run reports in all of the Essex units that confirms this. > > Although the incorrect code triggered the tombstone, a PDS update indicating death, only occurs when a date of death is actually recorded which hasn't happened. This has been confirmed by TPP, both to Virgin and to me. So we are confident no other systems (acute PAS, safeguarding etc ) have been affected. > > We have also had Virgin check to make sure none of the affected records have been transferred to other practices before the mistake had been rectified. A patient transferring from any S1 practice to any other S1 practice won't be affected as the marking in error process will update their records automatically, but transferring from a S1 practice to an non S1 practice won't. Virgin reported that three patients had transferred in this time frame but all three had gone S1 to S1 so we are confident that there is no consequences for these records either. > > All of the affected practices and their corresponding CCG's have been kept up dated. When I ran the reports on Monday, which was after they had started to correct them, the numbers were 256 in Mid, 77 in West, 56 in NE and one in BBW. None in Thurrock, CP&R or Southend. > > IG have have fully involved and have been communicating with the DoN's of all of then CCG's who have Virgin in their area. > > ECC have asked for assurance of the processes going forwards to ensure that firstly there are no other as yet undiscovered problems with the template and their revised processes to ensure this doesn't happen again. > > Basically it was a very simple mistake and one that shouldn't have happened, however to their credit once they realised the risk and consequences they have acted quickly and thoroughly. I have offered to help them in future if they want someone to look over their templates. That is informally so whether they take me up on the offer or not I don't know! > > I suspect that after this they now fully understand the complexities of managing shared records! > > Regards > > Roger Gardiner > >> On 29 Jul 2017, at 08:29, Mary Hawking <[log in to unmask]> wrote: being