Core information standard: Reports
2.10 Q10. Alerts. This section is for any significant information meriting a specific and highly visible warning to any user (e.g. metallic implant, emergency keyholder information, potentially dangerous pet). Should alerts (e.g. metallic implant, dangerous dogs) be flagged as part of the core information set?
Answered: 1,003 Skipped: 7
| ANSWER CHOICES | RESPONSES (%) | COUNT |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 86.54% | 868 |
| No | 1.79% | 18 |
| Not sure | 11.67% | 117 |
| TOTAL | 1,003 |
- 86.9 % of participants thought alerts should be flagged as part of the core information set.
- Fewer GPs (65%) think alerts should be flagged than any other group.
- No nurses, social care professionals or midwives disagree with sharing alerts
197 people left comments
A number of themes emerged from the qualitative analysis:
Information being reviewed and end date noted where appropriate
- Concerns were expressed about data being kept up to date, and an end date entered if an alert is no longer appropriate. "Dangerous dogs eventually die. Alerts live on."
- It was suggested that social care have good procedures for ensuring review and update.
Categorisation
- It was suggested that alerts be categorised so that they would only be shown if relevant to the professional, with many giving the example that a clinician would need to know about a medical implant but not a dangerous dog, whilst the reverse may be true for someone on a home visit.
Alert fatigue
- Concerns were expressed about information overload, with important alerts potentially being lost amongst more trivial information. In addition to categorisation, it was suggested that alerts should also be given a priority rating.
- In relation to this, it was suggested that data quality could be mixed.
Negative labelling
- Concerns were expressed about individuals being negatively labelled due to inaccurate or out-dated information.
Informing individuals
- The view was expressed that any alert raised should be notified to the individual concerned and that they should have access to the data held and have the ability to challenge it.
"Generally sharing would be helpful, however there are some possible operational issues which need considering. For example, the definition of 'alerts' may differ between health and social care systems, some of which may not be of value to share with other agencies. Typically, data quality on alerts can be mixed, and different agencies may have different review dates/procedures for managing alert information." (Social care professional, commissioning, local authority)
"This section could easily become over used and important information be lost. It would be useful to split into categories e.g. information essential for medical treatment (metallic implant) vs info important for community care (dangerous dog), to allow people to filter what is relevant to them." (Clinical Neuropsychologist, acute hospital)
"Unreported metal skull implants prevented urgent MRI scanning in a recent emergency" (Carer)
Page last updated: 06 January 2026