Darling to shelve NHS IT system

[RichardCranium]

If a small company like ours can find way to store web graph with trillions of edges in it, then surely given 10000 times more resources it is possible to do this very simple NHS database?

It is not the quantity of data, it is the data definition and the number of those definitions.

It won't be a simple database; it will be a horribly complex databank with each datum open to misinterpretation by professionals from other specialist areas than those who populated it.

It is this complexity which made it a non-starter.

Storing name, address, allergies, GP's details, DOB - yes.
Sharing historic and prescription data - yes.
Storing professional opinions - ooh, yuck.
Storing interpretations and assumptions - oh, lordy, lordy.

[TheFaQQer]

You mean they should speculate on the success of their venture?

It's not speculation when one invests long term into creating a product and then selling it in full or in parts.

So risking capital for a long and undefind period of time for a undefined and possibly non-existent pay-off is NOT speculation.

I believe AtW may have some knowledge of that kind of speculation

[TheFaQQer]

Storing name, address, allergies, GP's details, DOB - yes.
Sharing historic and prescription data - yes.
Storing professional opinions - ooh, yuck.
Storing interpretations and assumptions - oh, lordy, lordy.

Ah, just stuff it all into XML.

Simples.

[Mr.Whippy]

ZOMG so much data!

This is not 80s ffs, if a small company like ours can find way to store web graph with trillions of edges in it, then surely given 10000 times more resources it is possible to do this very simple NHS database?

What NHS should have done is develop a fairly simple spec with API and a set of tests to verify if software complies with it. *Any* company that pass the test should qualify for final decision.

I'd do it for £10 mln or less (plus hardware costs but they will be minimally required, ie: good redundant central servers and client PCs with internet connections).

Simple database? it's not a single database as much as it's a single "NHS computer". That's just the kind of sheer ignorance the programme is up against. People, such as you, really don't have a clue. "it's a computer, how hard can it be?"..............

And £10mn?

[AtW]

It is this complexity which made it a non-starter.

It was incompetence of those who were charged with implementing it - if they could not standardtise definitions on what is stored against user profile, then they should have allowed simple doctor notes, with date and doctor ID that made them - this would at least make data easily accessible from any authorised point, better than having paper record in one place.

£12 bln ffs

[AtW]

it's not a single database

It should be - single (redundant and backed up) central database - possibly replicated to multiple datacenters in the UK.

Accessing database should be possible from any access point with a browser and Internet over SSL.

That's it - simple stuff, allow local GPs buy their own computers with browsers and secure local internet connections with whom they deem appropriate.

[pzz76077]

Question:

How come other countries have had working systems for years, and the UK's never stood a chance of being finished??

Do they have different health care requirements??

Or do they just have better IT folk??



PZZ

[AtW]

So risking capital for a long and undefind period of time for a undefined and possibly non-existent pay-off is NOT speculation.

It's not speculation when you are investing to add value or create something new completely.

Ze spekultants typically buy stuff short term and don't change it.

Consequently there is a need for 2 things to be done about it:

1) discourage short term thinking - high taxes on CGT, long jail sentences for those who try to evade it, life sentence for anyone who is accountant/lawyer involved in covering these things up

2) Those who buy stuff like oil should be required to use it, ie: no resale unless you actually convert it into petrol, or plastics etc. Exception: if company goes bust then unused materials can be sold.

That's my 2 point plan to finish with ze spekulants.

HTH

[Mr.Whippy]

It should be - single (redundant and backed up) central database - possibly replicated to multiple datacenters in the UK.

yeah OK because there's nothing like a "one size fits all" approach... that just wouldn't work. Would you really want your choose and book appointment data in the same database as summary care records, or an ultrasound image of your nutsack?

Accessing database should be possible from any access point with a browser and Internet over SSL.

Having one big fat database with everything in it and allow that to be accessed over the internet? genius.........

That's it - simple stuff, allow local GPs buy their own computers with browsers and secure local internet connections with whom they deem appropriate.

Again, why is this a good idea?

[RichardCranium]

Question:

How come other countries have had working systems for years, and the UK's never stood a chance of being finished??

They don't have a National Health Service.