There’s some big news breaking over at the specialist E-Health Insider blog, which today reports that the Department of Health has shelved plans for the expansion and development of HealthSpace.  Healthspace was intended to be an all-singing all dancing NHS website which let patients book appointments, look at their medical records and keep track of their health and lifestyle data, so this announcement is a real blow to the project to give patients more control over their healthcare.

Currently, HealthSpace allows patients to book appointments and record health information. Patients in pilot areas can also view the basic medical information held on their Summary Care Records (SCRs). But the Department of Health had much bigger plans for HealthSpace in the long-term. It was hoped that it would give patients more control and ownership over their medical care, allowing them to read through doctors’ notes after a consultation, order repeat prescriptions, add to their SCR, check for accuracy and upload tests and measurements to aid the management of long-term conditions.

However, the programme has been severely delayed and only a tiny number of patients have accessed the services offered by HealthSpace – just 812 from a possible 250,000. In an unexpected announcement the Department of Health has said it is reviewing the value of HealthSpace to patients, and has halted the work in its tracks.

If the service stops at only allowing patients to view their SCRs, its value certainly is questionable. The Summary Care Record contains only basic information so it’s unlikely to be of particular interest to patients. For patients with chronic conditions like diabetes who do need to keep track of their health, the SCR will be of little use. The meat of GPs’ and hospital records remains firmly locked up in local systems.

In fact it’s not yet clear how many patients want access to their health information online at all. While a few GPs who’ve experimented with giving patients full access report real interest there’s yet to be a systematic evaluation of this type of system. In this context, the suggestion from University College, London of focusing on providing an tailored system for a limited number of patients carrying out self-care for chronic conditions, seems a reasonable next step.

Dr Neil Bacon and others argue that there is strong patient demand for access to medical records, but that the solution must be innovative and entrepreneurial, and should come from ‘trusted brand names,’ not the government. But it seems (thankfully) unlikely that Google or Microsoft will be given access to the NHS records systems so any commercial system will struggle to join up with existing systems of patient care. In the absence of an NHS-wide system, however, it may be up to private companies to deliver what they can.