Electronic patient records failing to make relevant clinical information available and actionable
First to latest report 12 Sep 2013 — 16 Jun 2026
Reports that mention this concern
67
Times this concern has been raised
75
Stated actions linked to this concern
102
What this concern includes
Includes failures of electronic patient-record systems or their dedicated workflows that prevent relevant information from being reliably accessed, displayed, preserved, shared, handed over or acted upon across clinical care.
What is not included
Excludes failures concerning paper-only records or information sharing with no explicit electronic patient-record connection.
Excludes generic failures of clinical attention, staffing, training or communication unless the report directly ties them to the electronic patient-record system or its dedicated workflow.
Excludes concerns about the clinical decision itself where the electronic patient-record system did not contribute to the information-access or action failure.
Excludes unrelated information systems that are not electronic patient-record systems or directly integrated clinical-record workflows.
Trends
Reports over time
Reports mentioning this concern, over time
Reports about this concern issued each year.
* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.
Most frequent recipients
Most frequent recipients
Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.
Department of Health and Social Care19
NHS England19
Care Quality Commission5
Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust3
University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust3
Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust2
Greater Manchester Health and Social Care Partnership2
Ministry of Justice2
NHS Derby and Derbyshire Integrated Care Board2
Appello Careline Limited1
Association of Ambulance Chief Executives1
Association Of British Neurologists1
Barts Health NHS Trust1
Betsi Cadwaladr University LHB1
Birmingham Women'S and Children'S NHS Foundation Trust1
NHS trust40
Ministerial department22
Executive non-departmental public body19
Healthcare site6
Health and social care service regulator5
Integrated care board5
Private limited company4
Community interest company2
Domiciliary care provider2
Health-system partnership2
Independent healthcare provider2
Registered charity2
Type not available2
Company1
Company limited by guarantee1
Reports and published responses 67 reports
See individual reports that have raised this concern, and the actions taken in response
Suffolk
Concerns raised1
Failure of online prescribers to access patients’ records during consultations
This report raised 5 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Birmingham and Solihull
Concerns raised1
Lack of access to all clinical records when planning treatment
This report raised 5 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response
Birmingham Women'S and Children'S NHS Foundation Trust
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
Birmingham Women'S and Children'S NHS Foundation Trust
Implement an electronic patient record providing staff with accessible medication details and individual patient risk factors.
Gloucestershire
Concerns raised1
Lack of interoperable electronic patient-record systems between general practices
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response
Department of Health and Social Care
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
Department of Health and Social Care
Existing GMS requirements and GP2GP enable electronic patient records to transfer between practices using different systems.
Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Manchester South
Concerns raised1
Failure to transfer administrative patient enquiries to the patient record and make them available to doctors
This report raised 4 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response
NHS Derby and Derbyshire Integrated Care Board
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2
NHS Derby and Derbyshire Integrated Care Board
Discuss adding record-keeping resources to the Hub Plus online information and support suite.
NHS Derby and Derbyshire Integrated Care Board
Discuss high-quality patient-record and medical-record guidance at a Clinical Governance Leads patient-safety agenda item.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
NHS Derby and Derbyshire Integrated Care Board
GP practices choose which online consultation tool to use and may opt out of automated integration with electronic patient records.
Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Manchester South
Concerns raised1
Delays in recording senior clinical findings in the electronic patient record
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent
Concerns raised1
Failure of computer systems to enable different NHS Trusts to access patient notes
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked responses
Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust
NHS England
University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.7
NHS England
Support NHS and foundation trusts to acquire modern electronic patient record systems and improve their effectiveness after deployment.
NHS England
Support increased electronic patient record convergence across Integrated Care Boards.
Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust
Provide UHDB with a list of liaison bank and Crisis Home Treatment staff requiring patient-notes access.
Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust
Work with other NHS trusts to maintain processes and safeguards that enable staff to access necessary patient records for safe care.
University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust
Reiterate to MPFT the available routes for obtaining emergency Meditech V6 access for bank staff.
University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust
Develop a written standard operating procedure with MPFT formalising emergency access arrangements for bank staff.
University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust
Work with MPFT to arrange Meditech V6 access for current short-term Liaison Psychiatry bank staff who lack it.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.3
NHS England
Local healthcare providers decide which electronic patient record systems to procure and deploy, based on local operational and financial factors.
Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust
The response cannot comment on national NHS patient-record access arrangements, while addressing access locally with other trusts.
Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust
Cross-organisation record access is addressed where possible through access arrangements and information-sharing protocols, despite wider interoperability limitations.
Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Berkshire
Concerns raised1
Unreliable use of electronic care-record repositioning prompts and mandatory tasks
This report raised 7 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Manchester South
Concerns raised2
Failure to provide clinicians with access to GP records across differing IT systems and geographical boundaries
Failure of differing NHS IT systems to support timely access to GP-record information
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked responses
East Cheshire NHS Trust
NHS England
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.4
NHS England
Provide the National Care Records Service, including national services that enable authorised staff to access relevant patient information across care settings.
East Cheshire NHS Trust
Implement Summary Care Record access for relevant clinical and discharge staff, including smart cards, training, induction, departmental support and troubleshooting.
East Cheshire NHS Trust
Audit Summary Care Record use, access incidents, staff feedback and smart-card support data after implementation.
East Cheshire NHS Trust
Strengthen clinical information gathering by prioritising comprehensive patient histories and asking GPs to review older records when relevant information is unavailable.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.3
NHS England
East Cheshire NHS Trust is responsible for responding to concerns about its recording, sharing and access arrangements.
Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
NHS England
Local Integrated Care Boards are responsible for delivering Shared Care Records.
Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
East Cheshire NHS Trust
NHS England is addressing differing NHS IT systems and GP record access, so the Trust will not address this matter further.
Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Manchester South
Concerns raised1
Failure of separate trust IT systems to transmit test information into the other trust’s patient records
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked responses
NHS England
NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3
NHS England
Collaborate across patient-safety and digital-clinical-safety teams to extract learning from EPR incidents and provide scenarios for evaluating systems and processes.
NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board
Continue improving interoperability between primary, secondary, tertiary and wider care information technology systems.
NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board
Challenge digital transformation leaders to examine interfaces between secondary and tertiary care systems and improve provider collaboration.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
NHS England
Existing EPR optimisation programmes at MUFT and NCA are considered sufficient to address concerns about separate clinical information systems.
Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent
Concerns raised2
Failure of electronic patient records to automatically share renal team entries between hospitals
Failure of allergy information to automatically cross-populate between records
Linked responses
Department of Health and Social Care
University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3
University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust
Implement the unified electronic patient record across Trust sites, with staged rollout underway and allergy functionality planned for the first phase.
University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust
Provide cross-record patient links between the two electronic patient records and links to the GP Summary Care Record through the Master Patient Index.
University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust
Establish a multidisciplinary allergy working group to ensure robust systems for managing allergies and alerts.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.3
University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust
The Trust cannot extend an existing EPR across all sites because of contractual, technical, support-life and specialist-function constraints.
Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Department of Health and Social Care
The Care Quality Commission will assess the incident and determine whether further regulatory action is needed.
Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Department of Health and Social Care
The University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust will address specific local actions in its separate response.
Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.
Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.