Building the future of healthcare: Why the Single Patient Record must be about more than technology

Thought leadership banner 

 

The idea of a Single Patient Record (SPR) is not new, but today, it feels closer to becoming a reality than ever before. As the healthcare sector undergoes sweeping digital transformation, the vision of a unified patient record, a system where every individual’s health information is accessible, accurate, and centred around their care journey, is gaining momentum.

Yet, as many leaders across health and care emphasise, the success of the SPR won’t be determined by technology alone. It will hinge on trust, collaboration, and purpose-driven design.

 

A game-changer with multi-faceted impact

The frustrations of fragmented systems are felt by all: patients, clinicians, and researchers. A true SPR could streamline access to data, reduce duplication, and improve clinical decision-making. For those who use, deliver, and analyse care, having a complete view of a patient’s history in one place would be transformative.

But while the potential is clear, so are the challenges. Creating a single record that supports real-time use across the NHS, social care, and research domains is an enormous undertaking. Leaders agree it’s essential, but complex.

 

Trust is the foundation

Three pillars underpin the success of the SPR: public trust, system stability, and staff advocacy.

Trust must be earned from the very beginning. The SPR must be designed for people, not simply about them. That means giving individuals the ability to see, contribute to, and control their records, and doing so with transparency and accountability.

There is already a significant gap between public perception and reality. Many believe a national patient record already exists, yet most have never seen their full GP record. Building trust will require closing that gap with clear communication and truly reciprocal systems, where people know how their data is used, who sees it, and how they can engage with it.

Inclusion is equally essential. Vulnerable groups, caregivers, and people with limited digital access must be supported—whether through proxy access, assistive tools, or bespoke interfaces. The SPR should not leave anyone behind.

 

Stability and interoperability: Standards matter

Technologically, the SPR requires harmonising thousands of systems across hospitals, community care, primary care, and more. This is not just about viewing data. It’s about making it editable, actionable, and embedded in care workflows. Clinical decision support, alerts, and workflow orchestration demand far more than a digital viewer.

The foundation must be standards – like SNOMED CT, PRSB standards, and shared care planning tools will be essential. Without consistent, high-quality standardised data, even the most advanced solutions will fail. Ensuring data quality and consistency across the system isn’t just important, it’s critical to success.

Clinical use cases must guide design. Patients with chronic or long-term conditions, for instance, may need years of health history to be made available. The system must accommodate these complexities from the start so that it is useful and used by patients and clinicians rather than a technology solution for its own ends.

 

Empowering the workforce and patients alike

The SPR can be a powerful tool for transformation and should be designed with users in mind.

For healthcare professionals, fragmented data equals fragmented care. The solution must integrate into real workflows. It must be intuitive, reliable, and relieve pressure not add to it. Co-production with clinicians, professionals, administrators, and front-line staff is crucial.

Data experts and informatics teams also need to collaborate deeply with clinical professionals. Often, what is technically feasible does not align with what is clinically useful. The SPR must be rooted in practical, front-line value.

At the same time, patients must not be seen merely as recipients, but as partners. A modern record should reflect and respect their voice, goals, and personal contributions.

 

Managing delivery and risk at national scale

This is a national-scale transformation, and with that comes risk. Previous programmes have faltered under the weight of political timelines and unrealistic expectations.

A successful SPR strategy must focus on sequencing and prioritisation. Starting small, showing value early, and expanding based on lessons learned will be more effective than trying to deliver everything at once. Policymakers must avoid the trap of eye-catching short-term wins at the expense of long-term outcomes.

Governance structures will need to be transparent, adaptive, and inclusive. With such a complex ecosystem, clear decision-making, shared accountability, and stakeholder engagement will determine whether the SPR delivers lasting value.

 

Looking ahead: Cultural change above all

Ultimately, the SPR is not just a digital project, it is a cultural transformation.

It asks healthcare to move from systems-centred to people-centred. It demands breaking down silos between IT, operations, and frontline care. And most of all, it calls for trust and collaboration at every level.

The opportunity is enormous: a single, trusted, life-long record that improves care, empowers people, and unlocks insights for health and research. Achieving this vision will require humility, integrity, and sustained effort.

Now is the time to come together to co-create this future.

 

Key takeaways

  • Trust first: Transparency, visibility, and patient control are non-negotiables.
  • Standardise smartly: High-quality, interoperable data is foundational.
  • Design collaboratively: The SPR must fit real workflows and empower professionals.
  • Govern with care: Deliver early impact, manage risk, and adapt continuously.
  • Keep people at the centre: This is about culture, equity, and better outcomes for all.
Read more news
Read more blogs

CHAT theory also explicitly addresses five areas which if addressed systematically will help overcome stakeholder differences in pursuit of the common goal:

1. Understanding the artefacts that characterise the group and its activity.
• The artefacts might be clinical settings or the forms and templates used to capture and share information. During the pilot we heard about hard copy Dialog response forms; locally generated templates for collating information from different systems; letters and emails to GPs; images, poems or other non-text artefacts that service users might want to include in their ‘about me’ or care plan.

2. Understanding the multi-views of the group. Such groups are always a community of multiple points of view, traditions and interests. 
• Different participants in the group will have different roles and will bring to the group and their roles their own histories, language, and ‘rules’. During our Stocktake preparations and workshops we worked with psychiatrists, mental health nurses, occupational therapists, social workers, transformation leads and voluntary sector representatives, all professions and interests with their own language, approaches professional ‘rules’ but united in their interest in care plans, care planning.

3. Activity systems (like the ICSs) take shape and get transformed over periods of time. ‘Historicity’ is a term coined to express how the group’s problems and potentials can only be understood against their own history. 

 

• ‘We’ve always done it this way’, ‘that didn’t work before’, ‘it’s always like this’, ‘it wasn’t always like this’, ‘they are changing things again’, are all typical statements that often frustrate those charged with overseeing change initiatives. Without addressing the experiences that lie behind such comments you risk repeating mistakes of the past, alienating your stakeholders or just not understanding the real starting point for your transformation project. This is particularly the case for the implementation of the PCSP standard, the success of which will be largely reliant on point-of-care practices and information protocols as well as having systems which are user friendly and appropriately configured.

4. The central role of contradictions as sources of change and development. Contradictions are not the same as problems or conflicts. Contradictions are historically accumulating structural tensions within and between activity systems. Collectively addressing contradictions in how policy, practice, culture and technology interact will empower teams to find genuinely novel solutions for apparently intractable challenges, like interoperability and shared care plan/planning. 

This links to the fifth principle that:

5. the possibility of expansive transformations in activity systems. As the contradictions of an activity system are aggravated, some individual participants begin to question and deviate from its established norms. In some cases, this escalates into collaborative envisioning and a deliberate collective change effort. “An expansive transformation is accomplished when the object and motive of the activity are re-conceptualised to embrace a radically wider horizon of possibilities than in the previous mode of the activity.”