Running Parallel Systems During ECM Implementation to Protect Care Continuity
Running parallel systems during ECM implementation is a common way to protect care continuity. It allows providers to keep existing records active while testing the new system in real conditions. However, dual systems can create duplication, confusion and risk if not managed carefully. A structured approach to digital care planning parallel system management helps ensure safe transition.
Parallel working should also consider how assistive technology data such as alerts and monitoring is recorded across systems. A broader digital transformation approach to governance and systems ensures that duplication is controlled and evidence remains clear.
Why this matters
During transition, staff may need to use both the old and new systems. Without clear rules, this can lead to missed entries, conflicting information or delays in updating care plans.
Parallel systems should be used for a defined purpose and limited time. The aim is to validate the new system while maintaining safe care delivery, not to create long-term duplication.
A practical framework for managing parallel systems
Providers should define which system is the primary record, what must be duplicated, how discrepancies are managed and when the old system will be retired.
The key is clarity. Staff must understand where to record information and how to escalate issues if records do not match.
Operational Example 1: Defining Clear Recording Rules Across Systems
Step 1: The project lead defines which system is the primary record for each type of information and records this clearly in the parallel working guidance document.
Step 2: The registered manager communicates recording rules to staff and records acknowledgement within the implementation communication log.
Step 3: The quality lead identifies high-risk records requiring duplication, such as medication, safeguarding and incidents, and records these in the risk control plan.
Step 4: Staff follow recording rules during shifts and record entries in the designated system, logging any uncertainty in the support tracker.
Step 5: The team leader reviews records daily and records whether entries are consistent across systems in the monitoring log.
What can go wrong is unclear recording responsibility. Early warning signs include missing entries, duplicated notes or conflicting information. Escalation involves immediate clarification and retraining. Consistency is maintained through clear written rules and daily checks.
Governance: Recording guidance, staff acknowledgements, risk control plans and monitoring logs are reviewed daily during parallel working. Action is triggered by inconsistent entries, unclear ownership or staff uncertainty affecting care delivery.
Evidence & Outcomes: The baseline issue was confusion during system transition. Measurable improvement includes clearer recording practice and reduced duplication errors. Evidence sources include care records, audits, feedback and staff practice.
Operational Example 2: Managing Discrepancies Between Systems
Step 1: The team leader identifies discrepancies between old and new records and records each issue in the discrepancy log.
Step 2: The registered manager reviews discrepancies and determines the correct version of the record, documenting decisions in the resolution record.
Step 3: Corrections are applied to the primary system and recorded, with notes explaining the reason for the change.
Step 4: The quality lead audits corrected records and records whether discrepancies have been resolved and evidence remains clear.
Step 5: The project lead reviews patterns of discrepancies and records whether additional training or system adjustments are required.
What can go wrong is discrepancies being ignored or resolved inconsistently. Early warning signs include repeated conflicts or unclear decision-making. Escalation involves senior review. Consistency is maintained through structured discrepancy management.
Governance: Discrepancy logs, resolution records, audit findings and pattern reviews are assessed regularly during parallel working. Action is triggered by unresolved discrepancies, repeated errors or unclear correction processes.
Evidence & Outcomes: The baseline issue was inconsistent record accuracy. Measurable improvement includes clearer records and stronger audit evidence. Evidence sources include care records, audits, feedback and staff practice.
Operational Example 3: Safely Ending Parallel Working
Step 1: The project board defines criteria for ending parallel systems, including data accuracy, staff confidence and audit results, and records these in the transition plan.
Step 2: The quality lead reviews records to confirm that the new system reflects current care delivery and records findings in the assurance report.
Step 3: The registered manager confirms staff readiness and records confidence levels in the implementation log.
Step 4: The old system is archived according to data governance requirements, and this is recorded in the data management record.
Step 5: The project board formally closes parallel working and records the decision and evidence within the governance file.
What can go wrong is ending parallel working too early or too late. Early warning signs include incomplete records or prolonged duplication. Escalation involves adjusting timelines. Consistency is maintained through defined exit criteria.
Governance: Transition plans, assurance reports, readiness logs and closure records are reviewed before ending parallel working. Action is triggered by incomplete data, low staff confidence or unresolved discrepancies.
Evidence & Outcomes: The baseline issue was unclear system transition. Measurable improvement includes smooth system change and improved record reliability. Evidence sources include care records, audits, feedback and staff practice.
Commissioner expectation
Commissioners expect continuity during system change. They may ask how providers ensured that records remained accurate and that care delivery was not disrupted.
Parallel system management should demonstrate control, clarity and governance.
Regulator / Inspector expectation
CQC inspectors expect providers to maintain safe care during transition. They may review how records were managed across systems and how risks were controlled.
Inspectors may also assess whether governance processes ensured accuracy and consistency.
Conclusion
Running parallel systems can support safe ECM implementation when managed carefully. Providers must define clear rules, manage discrepancies and plan transition closure.
Governance ensures that duplication is controlled and that records remain accurate throughout the process.
Outcomes are evidenced through improved record consistency, reduced errors and safe transition to the new system. These outcomes support care quality and inspection readiness.
Consistency is maintained through structured processes, monitoring and review. When handled properly, parallel working supports a safe and controlled system transition.