Ghostly goings-on in a doctor’s database near you

As mists and mellow fruitfulness provide the perfect backdrop to the spooky traditions of Halloween, ghostly goings-on are being uncovered in unexpected areas. Not in gloomy churchyards nor crumbling manor houses, but in GPs’ databases. No sightings have been reported, however – and herein lies the problem.

Figures from March this year identified 57 million patients held within GPs’ records. However, census data suggests this should stand at only 54 million. So who are these extra 3 million people, and how can there be more people on GPs’ books than actually exist? These records belong to ‘ghost patients’: patients who have deceased or emigrated, who are still being recorded as patients on surgery records. Also reflected in the figures could be duplications or inaccuracies in record keeping: perhaps patients are recorded more than once due to admin errors, or are moving around the country without updating their GP practices so are setting up new records with new practices. Either way, it has an impact on surgeries, on funding and on the services provided, adding unnecessary pressure to the NHS and leaving it unable to provide a precise picture of its patients and the care it provides.

Now, NHS England is beginning a ghost hunt, to attempt to track down and identify the owners of these records so they can update their data and save money. If a patient hasn’t seen their GP for five years, they’ll be sent a letter requesting them to respond. If they don’t respond, they’ll be sent a second letter, and if they still don’t respond to this, they’ll be removed from the patient register. This could be a measure that makes an instant saving, as, according to the BBC, our family doctors are paid for every patient registered on their list - the Times quantifies this at around £400 million a year.  Improved management of patient data would mean tighter management of this cost.

Cost savings aside, this inconveniences patients for being healthy. If I’m lucky enough not to have had to see my GP for five years, do I really have to confirm my existence? And there’s a more serious impact to this: if I’ve ignored the letters and do need my GP after five years, I might just find myself without fast access to healthcare.  

The solution, as I alluded to earlier, lies in better management of patient data: not just more accurate inputs, and regularly cleansed databases (although both will of course make a major difference) but in establishing validations and accurate connections. Which patient is linked to other patients? Who shares the same physical location? What picture does this ‘single customer view’ present, once all the connections are established? We have clients in the financial services sector who use our software platforms to do exactly this: to identify, locate, connect and communicate. They develop a clear picture of each client by pulling together information across different data sets, and use this information to minimise risk.

This deeper dive into patient data and the connections within it could be used to great benefit in the health service. As well as enabling a tighter hold on data and driving compliance, it can also be used for identifying patterns and trends: a higher prevalence of particular illnesses in certain locations or at certain times of the year, for example, helping healthcare providers plan education initiatives or vaccination programmes.

Gaining a better control of data will help the NHS improve precision and accuracy in its records. Its data will become an asset, and a means of national health intelligence. It can help the health service drive positive, preventative outcomes, reducing pressure on the service and improving health and fitness. A utopian view? Perhaps – but without the need for ghostbusters.