Sample policy · GP

Cross-sector handover and shared-care prescribing policy (gp)

Statutory anchor: Regulation 12 (safe care and treatment), Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/2936), in particular Regulation 12(2)(i) on shared and transferred responsibility for care. This policy also engages Regulation 17 (good governance). · primary source

1. What the regulation says

Care and treatment must be provided in a safe way for service users. (Reg 12(1) (the headline duty))

where responsibility for the care and treatment of service users is shared with, or transferred to, other persons, working with such other persons, service users and other appropriate persons to ensure that timely care planning takes place to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the service users. (Reg 12(2)(i) (shared / transferred responsibility))

assessing the risks to the health and safety of service users of receiving the care or treatment, (Reg 12(2)(a) (risk assessment))

doing all that is reasonably practicable to mitigate any such risks, (Reg 12(2)(b) (risk mitigation))

ensuring that persons providing care or treatment to service users have the qualifications, competence, skills and experience to do so safely, (Reg 12(2)(c) (staff competence))

the proper and safe management of medicines, (Reg 12(2)(g) (medicines management))

The full text of the regulation is at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/2936/regulation/12. Where this policy and the regulation diverge, the regulation wins.

2. Plain-English summary

Care and treatment must be provided in a safe way. The regulation lists the areas a provider must address, including risk assessment, risk mitigation, staff competence, safe premises, safe equipment, sufficient equipment and medicines, medicines safety, infection prevention and shared-care planning. Regulation 12 is central to CQC's safety expectations.

3. Purpose

This policy sets out how the Practice handles clinical handover when a patient is shared between this Practice and another clinical provider, and how the Practice manages prescribing where a patient is also under the care of another prescriber. The most common patterns at private GP practices are:

This policy covers the documentation, communication, and prescribing-decision discipline for those patterns.

4. Scope

This policy applies to:

5. Patient consent for cross-sector data sharing

Before this Practice shares clinical information with another provider (NHS GP, specialist, hospital, community pharmacy, allied health provider), the patient's consent is recorded.

The Practice's default position:

Consent records are kept in the patient's clinical record, with the date, scope of consent, named recipient, and signature where applicable.

6. Handover documentation standards

When this Practice corresponds with another provider about a shared patient, the correspondence captures:

The Practice retains a copy of every outbound clinical correspondence in the patient's clinical record. Inbound correspondence (from NHS GPs, specialists, hospitals) is also added to the patient's clinical record on receipt; the Registered Manager is responsible for ensuring inbound correspondence is reviewed by the appropriate clinician within 5 working days of receipt (Verivius default; not regulator-mandated).

7. Shared-care prescribing: accept or decline

When this Practice receives a request to take over prescribing under a shared-care arrangement (typically from a specialist), the Practice:

7.1 Assesses the request

7.2 Documents the decision

7.3 Reviews periodically

Shared-care prescribing is reviewed at the patient's annual review, OR sooner if the patient's clinical situation changes, OR sooner if the specialist's care relationship changes. Review covers: is the medication still appropriate, are the monitoring requirements being met, has the specialist relationship continued.

8. Private-prescribing handed to NHS GP for continuation

Where this Practice initiates a private prescription (e.g. weight-management, hormone-replacement, off-label) that the patient subsequently asks their NHS GP to continue:

9. NHS-prescribing patient seeing this Practice privately

Where a patient is seen by this Practice privately while also under NHS GP care:

10. Hospital and private-clinic discharge follow-up

When the Practice receives a hospital discharge summary or private-clinic post-procedure summary for a patient on the Practice's books:

11. Safeguarding handover

Where this Practice is involved in shared care of a patient on a safeguarding pathway (child protection, adult safeguarding), the Practice:

12. Information governance

All cross-sector handover documentation is subject to the Practice's information-governance policy:

UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018 considerations are addressed in the Practice's separate data-protection policy.

Operational controls to adapt

Step-by-step operational procedure

  1. Log the request or correspondence. Record the date received, source provider, patient identifier, type of request, requested action and responsible clinician.
  2. Check consent and lawful sharing. Confirm the patient's consent or the lawful basis for sharing, including safeguarding or serious-risk exceptions where consent is not required.
  3. Triage clinical risk. Mark same-day items such as safeguarding, urgent cancer suspicion, acute mental-health risk, medication safety, abnormal results or discharge actions that cannot wait.
  4. Assign clinical ownership. Allocate the task to a clinician with the competence and authority to accept, decline, prescribe, monitor or hand over.
  5. Decide accept, decline or clarify. For shared-care prescribing, confirm whether a valid protocol exists, the specialist remains involved, monitoring is feasible and the Practice has competence.
  6. Write the response. Send a clear acceptance, decline, request for clarification or handover letter that states responsibilities, monitoring, escalation and patient communication.
  7. Track completion. Do not close the log entry until the patient record, correspondence copy, monitoring plan, prescription decision and patient communication are complete.
  8. Escalate failures. Unreviewed correspondence, unclear responsibility, missed monitoring, unsafe prescribing pressure or failed handover is opened on the incident, risk or improvement-actions register.

Records and evidence fields

The handover and shared-care record should include:

Training and competence

Clinicians who accept shared-care prescribing must be competent for the medicine, monitoring, adverse-effect advice and escalation route. Administrative staff who handle correspondence must be trained to recognise urgent clinical handovers and to route them without delay. The Practice records competence, role limits and refresher dates.

Local adaptation prompts

Before adoption, the Practice should state:

13. Roles and responsibilities

Role Responsibility
Clinicians (GP partners, salaried GPs, locum GPs, pharmacist prescribers) Author outbound clinical correspondence; assess shared-care prescribing requests; document decisions
Practice Manager Ensure inbound correspondence is routed to the appropriate clinician within 5 working days; maintain the Practice's correspondence-tracking log
Registered Manager Ensure this policy is followed; audit a sample of cross-sector correspondence quarterly
Nominated Individual Receive annual cross-sector-handover audit summary; escalate concerning patterns to partners as appropriate

14. Audit and review

This policy is reviewed annually by the Registered Manager and the Clinical Lead. Sooner review is triggered if:

Review is recorded with date, reviewer, and any changes made.

15. Sources and further reading

This template is based on CQC's guidance for providers and managers, the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, and other topic-specific legislation and guidance listed below. It is a starting point for adaptation, not a substitute for legal, clinical, HR, safeguarding or specialist professional advice.

Related reading

16. When to seek further advice

Seek specialist advice where the issue involves serious harm, safeguarding, deprivation of liberty, restraint, children, professional misconduct, controlled drugs, radiation, termination of pregnancy, infection outbreak, water safety, employment dismissal, DBS barring referral, or regulatory enforcement.

17. Document control

Version Date Author Changes
v1.1 2026-07-14 Verivius (sample) Added handover procedure, evidence fields, register links, training controls, local adaptation prompts and related reading.
v0.1 2026-05-22 Verivius (sample) Initial sample draft.
v1 2026-06-10 Verivius (sample) Conformed to the Verivius policy standard: anchored to Regulation 12, added verbatim regulation text and plain-English summary, standardised sources and document control.

This sample policy template was issued by Verivius. It is a template, not a substitute for legal advice or the tenant's own policy-development process. Where this template and live law or regulator guidance diverge, the live source wins.

What good looks like here

Written from an ex-CQC inspector's chair, but the point is safe, well-led care your team can stand behind. Each row shows what strong evidence looks like, what thin evidence looks like, and where the expectation comes from.

The distinctive danger in this policy is a patient with two prescribers and nobody who owns the monitoring. A private practice and an NHS GP can each hold half a medication list, each assume the other is doing the periodic bloods, and the first sign that neither was is an abnormal result nobody chased or a patient who runs out of a medicine they should not stop abruptly. Shared care also casts the patient as the messenger between two systems that do not share a record, which is exactly where people with the least confidence in navigating services, or the most sensitive histories, fall through. A written acceptance or decline that names the scope, the monitoring owner and the escalation route is what turns a vague understanding between two clinicians into care a person can actually rely on. That same trail tells the Practice honestly whether it is accepting shared care it can deliver, or absorbing prescribing it cannot safely monitor because declining felt awkward.

  1. A request to take over prescribing under a shared-care arrangement is actively assessed and the decision put in writing, not quietly absorbed into repeat prescribing. The patient is the one exposed when prescribing continues with no recorded acceptance of the scope of GP responsibility, monitoring schedule and escalation pathway, and no written decline where the Practice cannot safely take it on.

    Strong evidence: The written acceptance or decline letter to the specialist held in the patient's clinical record (section 7.2), plus the accept, decline or clarify decision with its reason and named responsible clinician in the handover and shared-care record fields (records and evidence fields).

    Weak evidence: Weak evidence looks like the specialist's medicine appearing on the repeat template with no letter either way in the record, or a shared-care request filed as inbound correspondence and never answered. It also looks like an acceptance that says the Practice is happy to prescribe without naming which tests the Practice will do, which the specialist keeps and who to contact if the patient deteriorates, or a decline given over the phone with nothing in writing to the specialist and nothing to the patient.

    The recognised standard from a professional or clinical body, such as NICE or a royal college. Not a legal duty, but the accepted mark of safe practice, and a departure needs a documented reason.
  2. For each shared-care medicine, the record names who owns each monitoring test and what happens when a result is abnormal or a test is missed, not just that monitoring is done. Monitoring drifts when responsibility between the GP and the specialist was never pinned down, and it is the patient who goes unmonitored.

    Strong evidence: The monitoring schedule, test owner and abnormal-result escalation captured in the records and evidence fields, reviewed at the patient's annual review or sooner if the clinical situation or the specialist relationship changes (section 7.3).

    Weak evidence: Weak evidence looks like a monitoring entry that says bloods as per protocol with no named owner, and results filed as seen with no recorded action. The tell is the two-sided assumption: the Practice believes the specialist clinic is doing the periodic bloods, the clinic believes the GP is, and nothing in either record says what happens when a patient misses a test or a result comes back out of range.

    The recognised standard from a professional or clinical body, such as NICE or a royal college. Not a legal duty, but the accepted mark of safe practice, and a departure needs a documented reason.
  3. Inbound correspondence (hospital discharge summaries, specialist letters) is reviewed by an appropriate clinician and each identified action completed, not simply filed to the record. The failure that harms people is a discharge summary that sat unreviewed while a medication change or follow-up booking was missed.

    Strong evidence: The correspondence-tracking log showing date of receipt and clinician review, and the completion tracking that keeps a log entry open until record, correspondence copy, monitoring plan, prescription decision and patient communication are all done (operational procedure steps 1 and 7). The stated review within 5 working days is a Verivius default in the policy, not a regulator-mandated timescale.

    Weak evidence: Weak evidence looks like discharge summaries auto-filed to the clinical record by the document workflow, with the coder the only person who ever touched them, and a log that records the date received but not who reviewed it or what changed as a result. It also looks like entries closed while the medication change is still unmade or the follow-up still unbooked, or actions ticked complete on the day they were raised across the whole log. The review timescale in the policy is a Verivius default, so what matters is whether the Practice meets the standard it set itself.

    Our recommended baseline. Not a legal or regulatory requirement, but a sensible standard we suggest where the rules leave the detail to you. Adapt it to your service.
  4. Consent or a lawful basis is recorded before clinical information leaves the Practice, at the tier the policy sets for the sensitivity of the data. The failures that matter are sensitive records (mental health, sexual health, safeguarding) shared without the explicit written consent the policy requires, or, where the patient is also registered with an NHS GP, an NHS prescription altered without liaison with that NHS GP.

    Strong evidence: The consent record in the clinical file showing date, scope, named recipient and signature where applicable (section 5); for safeguarding sharing, the lawful basis or public-interest reason recorded in place of consent (records and evidence fields, section 11).

    Weak evidence: Weak evidence looks like a tick on a registration form about sharing with other healthcare professionals being relied on years later to send a private mental-health letter to the NHS GP, or a consent entry with no date, no scope and no named recipient. It also looks like sexual-health or mental-health correspondence sent because it was treated as routine, against the Practice's own stated standard of explicit written consent for sensitive categories, and safeguarding disclosures with nothing recorded about the lawful basis relied on in place of consent.

    Our recommended baseline. Not a legal or regulatory requirement, but a sensible standard we suggest where the rules leave the detail to you. Adapt it to your service.
  5. Failed handovers, unclear responsibility, missed monitoring and unsafe prescribing pressure are opened on the incident, risk or improvement-action register and audited, not treated as one-off admin. A pattern of dropped handovers with no register trail behind it repeats on the next patient.

    Strong evidence: The linked incident, risk, complaint, medicines or safeguarding reference in the handover record (records and evidence fields), and the Registered Manager's quarterly sample audit of cross-sector correspondence (section 14 and the roles table).

    Weak evidence: Weak evidence looks like handover failures fixed quietly in the inbox by re-sending the letter and never opened on any register, so there is no trail behind a repeating problem. The audit tell is a note saying correspondence reviewed, no concerns, with no sample size, no records identified and no actions, repeated in near-identical wording quarter after quarter.

    Our recommended baseline. Not a legal or regulatory requirement, but a sensible standard we suggest where the rules leave the detail to you. Adapt it to your service.

Last verified 20 July 2026

Spotted something to improve?

These are sample templates, not the last word. If you would change a wording, or want to help us confirm a detail, tell us and we will look at it.

Related Verivius content

Want help adapting this to your service?

A Verivius consultant can read your adapted policy against the live regulation and your service shape. The work fits inside a Mock Inspection engagement or a shorter consulting brief. A 20-minute conversation is the fastest way to find out whether the fit is right.

Get started free

Free to start, no card. A 14-day trial when you subscribe.

Last reviewed 10 June 2026