CWHHE CLINICAL COMMISSIONING GROUP COLLABORATIVE
Information Strategy and Information Governance Committee
Thursday 3rd April 2014
15 Marylebone Road
Members in attendance
Alastair Gilchrist (AG)
Lay member, West London CCG, Chair
Ben Westmancott(BW)
Director of Compliance and Deputy SIRO, CWHHE CCGs
Farid Fouladinejad (FF)
Richard Baxter (RB)
IT Strategic Lead, CWHHE CCGs
GP IT Lead, Hounslow CCG
Tony Willis (TW)
GP IT Lead, Hammersmith and Fulham CCG
Non Members in attendance
Joanna Daffurn (JD)
Amy Sanchis (AS)
Governance Officer, CWHHE CCGs
Governance Assistant, CWHHE CCGs
Andrew Earnshaw (AE)
PA Consulting
Sonia Patel (SP)
Strategy and Transformation Informatics Lead
Sena Shah (SS)
Linda Williamson (LW)
Project Manager Hammersmith & Fulham CCG
Project Manager CWHHE CCGs
Minutes
Business Items
Action
1.
Welcome/Apologies
1.1.
Apologies were received from Arjun Dhillon, Richard Hooker and Philippa Jones.
The Chief Officer and the Chairs of the 5 CCGs were also unable to attend.
2.
Declaration of interests
2.1.
No interests were declared.
3.
Minutes of the Last Meeting – 6th February 2014
3.1.
The minutes of the last meeting were approved as an accurate record of the
meeting.
CWHHE is a collaboration between the Central London, West London, Hammersmith & Fulham, Hounslow and
Ealing Clinical Commissioning Groups
Page 1 of 6
4.
Matters Arising
4.1.
JD updated the committee on the work that has taken place on mapping IT
committees across North West London. It was noted that, in view of the complexity
and lack of clarity of the current arrangements, it would be useful to have a central
point of focus, such as a Director of Informatics.
All
Members were asked to report back to JD about gaps in the descriptions of roles
and responsibilities of the groups and committees by Wednesday 9 April 2014.
4.2.
Hammersmith & Fulham CCG governing body recommended that the quorum of
this committee be strengthened to make it a requirement for at least one lay
member to be present. The Committee agreed to this amendment which would be
AS
made to the Terms of Reference.
4.3.
Meeting with Imperial – Following the previous ISIG meeting, JD, BW and FF met
with the Caldicott Guardian, IT Director and Information Governance lead at
Imperial College Hospitals NHS Trust. It was agreed that CWHHE and all main
providers need to continue to communicate in order to ensure alignment of the
information strategies. However it was not clear which CCG forum would be most
appropriate for providers to attend when needed. The committee agreed that initial
contact from providers to CCGs would be via BW, JD and FF who will be able to
advise which forum the most appropriate.
4.4.
The additional security encryption that Imperial has added to outgoing emails was
discussed as well as the relative risks in relation to NHS.mail and emails sent over
N3 connections.
4.5.
SystmOne – regular meetings are held with each CCG to discuss SystmOne
implementation and the benefits realisation process. To reduce duplication the
committee requested that a SystmOne highlight report is presented at each meeting
AS
which outlines overall progress, any major issues or delays in implementation etc.
This will be added as a standing item to the agenda. To support discussion FF
FF
agreed to circulate the SystmOne issue log.
4.6.
The Development plan for Ealing moving to SystmOne has been executed and all
GP practices have been engaged. The SystmOne implementation team will
continue to work with Ealing GPs.
4.7.
CCG Data Strategies – CCGs are waiting for NHS England to circulate the CCG
model strategy.
5.
IT CQUINs and Programme Management 2014/15
5.1.
Across the eight CCGs, the largest share of CQUIN funding had been allocated to
IT. This is to encourage sharing of information either through employing SystmOne
or by ensuring interoperability between systems. FF had written to all providers,
and received a variety of responses from different providers, as they are at different
stages. FF explained the position of individual providers and an update on CQUINs
will be provided as a standing agenda item.
5.2.
It was noted that a good CQUIN required the CCGs to work very closely with
providers and that representatives from primary care were required in reviewing
and monitoring progress made. The need to engage the CSU was also highlighted.
CWHHE is a collaboration between the Central London, West London, Hammersmith & Fulham, Hounslow and
Ealing Clinical Commissioning Groups
Page 2 of 6
5.3.
A requirement for providers to evidence the progress they were making had been
included in the CQUIN and the need to formalise the process for monitoring and
reporting progress was noted.
5.4.
The role of local IT committees and CQUIN monitoring was discussed, and it was
proposed that they would review at the monthly meetings and report back to the IS
& IG committee. To support discussions FF will produce a quarterly CQUIN update
report to the ISIG Committee.
5.5.
The Privacy Impact Assessment was discussed and BW agreed to review in more
detail.
6.
Imperial Healthcare Information Exchange Project
6.1.
The draft PID for this project was introduced to the committee and it was noted the
project is at an early stage. Imperial had originally intended to set up a portal that
GPs could log in to, but reflecting collaborative concerns, the focus had changed to
a more two-way information exchange. This is much more aligned with CCG IT
strategy and was approved.
6.2.
The committee noted that it is critical that CCGs were involved in this project as
sharing patient records across systems was fundamental to delivering an improved
service to patients. Imperial has created a HIE forum which includes CCG GP
representation. It was confirmed that GPs on that forum were acting in the capacity
of CCG representatives and did not receive remuneration or benefits from Imperial
for this work therefore there was no conflict of interest.
7.
Patient Record Sharing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and Stakeholder
Engagement
Engagement events for the MOU were almost finished. The LMC were happy with
the document, and it had been endorsed by Dame Fiona Caldicott.
All parties were aware of the benefits and objectives of this project in terms of
secure but free-flowing patient records for care use. It was confirmed that there
were no plans to use this MOU for data sharing for secondary purposes.
The Committee discussed how Patient groups were concerned about data sharing,
particularly after care.data was reported poorly in the media, but were more
comfortable with the concept once it had been explained. Communications would
therefore have to be carefully managed to ensure that widespread, but secure, data
sharing is enabled.
7.1.
7.2.
7.3.
FF
BW
7.4.
JD had provided Christine Dunne (CSU GP IT team) and Robin Burgess (Head of
Intelligence, NHS England) with a number of dates for practice manager meetings
within each CCG for Robin Burgess to discuss the care.data project. SS informed
the committee that he had arranged a meeting with Robin Burgess in May to
discuss prior to meeting with HFCCG GPs. JD requested to attend the meeting so
that it can be approached collaboratively.
7.5.
A governance group is needed to manage the MOU, and there was discussion
around who would be represented and how, in order to avoid the group becoming
unwieldy. It was agreed that this committee was best placed to oversee the
governance and implementation of the MOU and the Terms of Reference would be
LW
prepared for review by this Committee prior to governing body approval.
CWHHE is a collaboration between the Central London, West London, Hammersmith & Fulham, Hounslow and
Ealing Clinical Commissioning Groups
Page 3 of 6
7.6.
A separate question was raised regarding patient awareness of how their data is
used. The committee was informed that a fair processing notice had been circulated
to all GP practices within CWHHE CCGs as stated in the data processing contract
for risk stratification. AG requested a copy of the Fair Processing Notice and NHSE
JD
assurance statement.
7.7.
A final version of the MOU to be sent to BW with the terms of reference of the LW
governance group prior to review by the committee and seeking governing body
approval.
8.
IT Programmes Benefits Realisation Framework
8.1.
The CCGs in North West London have been implementing several projects which
were very advanced compared to other geographic locations, on very tight
schedules. It was now timely to look at the benefits that would be realised and the
lessons which could be learned.
8.2.
The aim of the framework was to provide a method of identifying and quantifying
benefits and dis-benefits, critical elements and critical success criteria, thereby
providing material for case studies and learning for future projects.
8.3.
It was suggested that it could be presented in table format, as this may facilitate use
by those who had no prior knowledge of the project. It was also suggested that
patient benefits should be put at the top and that prioritisation of benefits could be
developed. Care planning and integrated care should be very clearly highlighted.
8.4.
There was discussion around who would act as lead director for Benefits
Realisation. It was suggested that this should be the Director of Compliance whilst
noting concerns about whether this post should actually do the work or just evaluate
the evidence, the latter being favoured.
8.5.
It was agreed that the IT Programmes Benefits Realisation Framework no longer
needed to be treated as confidential.
8.6.
It was also agreed that the IT Programmes Benefits Realisation Framework should
be a standing agenda item so that updates on progress could be reviewed.
9.
Information Governance Update
9.1.
Risk Stratification – This affected all of the five CCGs except Central London CCG
who are using a different provider. The risk stratification data sharing contracts
have been circulated to all GPs and are due to be returned by 9th April. Once
returned and assurances that the GP is compliant have been gained the data feed
for risk stratification can be turned on. It was noted that risk stratification data will be
required for whole systems and integrated care to work.
CWHHE is a collaboration between the Central London, West London, Hammersmith & Fulham, Hounslow and
Ealing Clinical Commissioning Groups
Page 4 of 6
9.2.
IG Toolkit
- IG Toolkit compliance at Level 2 for all 5 CCGs had been achieved
- GPs had had to do large amounts of work to ensure compliance and their
excellent progress was noted
- NHS England was willing to support CCGs in looking more closely at GPs
where concerns had been identified
- The need for further staff training for West London CCG was noted
- The definitive report from Internal Audit had not yet been received and will
JD
be presented at the next committee meeting.
BW thanked JD for all her work in improving compliance and reducing IG
risks.
10.
SystmOne Online and Patient Accessibility demo
10.1.
This was postponed to the next meeting due to time constraints.
11.
Whole Systems Informatics Strategy
11.1.
PA Consulting had been engaged to lead the preparation of an informatics
strategy across the 8 CCGs in the context of whole system needs. The
committee noted that the strategy was in still in draft form and needed
updating to take into account comments already received.
11.2.
The main conclusions from the strategy were that a common focal point
across the 8 CCGs for an Informatics Director was lacking, that a single GP
system was preferable for full interoperability however a single system may
not be a realistic outcome.
11.3.
SP invited comments so that the draft could be presented to CCGs for
approval. She committed to sending a clean copy of the document for review
and requested comments to be provided by 24 April 2014. A log of which
committees had already seen the strategy would also be circulated.
12.
IT and Business Continuity
12.1.
The committee noted the business continuity plan. Concerns around the
robustness of the plans were raised and the possible single points of failure
that existed. These would be followed up with the provider of the IT service
to allow the committee to better understand what mitigations we should
recommend prior to the improvement of system reliability that was promised
for later this year.
13.
Work Plan
13.1.
This was postponed to the next meeting due to time constraints.
14.
Any Other Business
14.1.
The Chair thanked all concerned for the improved quality of the papers but
noted that due to the pressure of items to review and discuss, it was
practical that future meetings we extended to 2 hours duration henceforth
and invitations would be amended to reflect this.
A
All
SP
BW
AS
CWHHE is a collaboration between the Central London, West London, Hammersmith & Fulham, Hounslow and
Ealing Clinical Commissioning Groups
Page 5 of 6
15.
Dates of next meetings
15.1.
15th May 2014 – 11.00am – 12.30pm
17th July 2014 – 10.30am – 12.30pm
16th October 2014 – 10.30am – 12.30pm
CWHHE is a collaboration between the Central London, West London, Hammersmith & Fulham, Hounslow and
Ealing Clinical Commissioning Groups
Page 6 of 6