Agenda item

The Leicester Partnership Trust will give the Commission a verbal presentation on Shared Care Records.

The Leicester Partnership Trust (LPT) gave a verbal presentation on the Shared Care Records.

It was noted that:

• The Shared Care Record covered different patient groups and local authorities.
• The system brought together various data sets into one place, this offered a more holistic view of a person’s care, including any social care provision.
• Historically, social care teams had to wait for information before picking up cases, but this system aimed to reduce those delays.
• Around 1,100 social care users and professionals across the three local authorities had access to the record.
• The system also showed who was providing care across different organisations.
• GPs were in the process of being rolled out onto the system.
• Other services such as Pharmacy First, LOROS, EMAS, Rainbows, and patient care local terms were also being connected.
• Onboarding continued for new use cases and in alignment with national directions, while also focusing on local user needs.
• A pilot had started with Children’s Social Care groups, including Looked After Children, working on a data set to support direct care for individual children.

In discussions with Members, the following was noted:

• It was noted that Adult Social Care (ASC) had often been overlooked compared to health services. Questions were raised about who the 1,100 users accessing the shared care record were, as this only represented a small portion of the ASC workforce in the city. Concerns were expressed about whether frontline staff were benefiting from the system.
• Officers clarified that teams granted access had been prioritised by local authorities, such as front door, mental health workers, learning disability workers, social care workers and review teams and rapid response teams. The system was designed to link into existing platforms like Liquid Logic, avoiding the need for additional logins. Care homes also currently had access to SystmOne, with potential for integration with the care records.
• Members welcomed the progress and asked about the timeframe for enabling access to records during a person's hospital stay and how early in their care journey this could happen.
• Officers explained that timelines were dependent on work by system suppliers and aligned with financial year planning. While there were internal targets, no national deadlines had been set.
• Questions were raised on how the rollout would be paced and how different IT systems used by domiciliary care providers could be affected by the process. It was noted that many local authorities use Liquid Logic, which could help speed up national implementation. Careful management of consent, especially from families and informal carers was emphasised.
• Concerns were raised about data security, particularly regarding children. Members questioned safeguards in place to prevent full access to sensitive information stored in systems like Liquid Logic.
• Officers reassured that access was strictly for direct care and based on a need to know basis. Not all users had access to full records, and data visibility was limited to specific patients and relevant information only.
• Queries were made about the financial cost of the programme, especially in light of past failed attempts by the government to implement similar systems. It was also raised about GDPR compliance, consent pathways, and the lack of supporting information in the report.
• Officers responded that every interaction with the care record was tracked and accessible only to authorised healthcare professionals. The programme aimed to speed up discharge and improve direct care delivery.
• The significant difference made by integrated systems like SystmOne was noted and highlighted past issues where paper notes were physically carried across hospital departments.
• Clarification was sought on whether the system would be accessible to lower-level care workers, such as visiting carers. Officers explained that access currently extended to more official or clinical roles, such as pharmacists and hospice staff, but not to domiciliary carers visiting people in their homes.

AGREED:

1.    The presentation was noted.

2.    Further information would be circulated to members.

3.    The pathways diagram to be shared with members.