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.