NPfIT

[Menelaus]

Good news doesn't sell papers.

WHS+1.

Salaciousness sells - good news doesn't.

Although, given that this is NHS, perhaps it's the old newspaper adage - if it bleeds, it leads.

[DaveB]

Spent two years working on the Spine at BT. Most of the problems wern't with the project work but with the internal management at BT. The Spine service itself seemed to work well and did a good job of supporting the ancillary systems like PACs, Choose and Book etc.

Any scary stuff I found when auditing was invariably down to management decisions and not as a result of poor design or implementation.

[minestrone]

The reports I get from primary care are lukewarm to say the least.

[Churchill]

Good news doesn't sell papers.

I worked on PACS (Picture Archiving and Communications System- digital imaging to you and me) - the speed, accuracy and usability of the technology is so ahead of X-Rays that every doctor I've spoken to who has experience of it has said it has revolutionised Radiology.

But that wouldn't get into the papers either...

I refer the honourable Lady to my previous post on the matter.

[cojak]

I worked on PACS (Picture Archiving and Communications System- digital imaging to you and me) - the speed, accuracy and usability of the technology is so ahead of X-Rays that every doctor I've spoken to who has experience of it has said it has revolutionised Radiology.

But that wouldn't get into the papers either...

[Churchill]

So my advice is take the newspaper articles with a pinch of salt.

As I said, the papers look at the overall project and slate it en masse. It's the hundreds of other successful projects that get nary a mention that the public don't hear about.

Good news doesn't sell papers.

[Board Game Geek]

I work on this project and have done for 4 or so years.

I work at the front line, of delivery and training to the clinical users.

In 4 years, things have improved in leaps and bounds, and the systems that I install are more robust and joined up than ever before.

There are many projects running in tandem, and the media report the "Big Picture" and criticise it's failings, however they never technically explain the "little picture" and all the things that are going on in the background.

Eg, A Doctor's Surgery will have a clinical system to store patient notes, manage appointments, etc.

This system would have been provided by a 3rd party (of which there are 3-4 players in the market)

The 3rd party would have supplied a Clinical Server, supplied PC's to the surgery and wrapped it all up in a maintenance contract with the surgery which the PCT pay for.

However, it is clearly obvious that many of these "maintenance contracts" are exercises in gouging the PCT for ridiculous sums of money. Eg...call out to replace a CD Drive on a Doctor's PC : £950. It's disgusting and more importantly, it's yours and mine taxpayer's money funding the excess.

So the PCT put their foot down.

Cancel all maintenance contracts with the 3rd parties. Deploy their own PC's and Servers. Migrate the surgeries to an offsite-hosted solution, and there is no need for a 3rd party to be involved at surgery level anymore. Even better, we can now create AD Domains in surgeries (they used to be workgroups), add them to our own PCT Domain, then remotely access and troubleshoot PC's, to improve response times. Add in roaming profiles, and Doctors and Staff now have flexibility. A flexible workforce is better poised to meet and exceed patient's needs.

The surgeries are working more efficiently, and this cascades down to patient care, which is the primary goal.

Other PCT's have come to us to see how we have taken IT in-house, and the success and savings we are making.

One of the biggest drivers is our Head of IT...he came from the private commercial sector, like myself, and was appalled with how the public sector operated, and he has shaken things up and got results.

I'm very positive about the overall NpFit project, because I have seen slow but steady, beneficial change over the last 4 years. We've got good people in the right places, more and more technical competence than ever before, and minor projects are delivering results and benefits to patient care.

So my advice is take the newspaper articles with a pinch of salt.

As I said, the papers look at the overall project and slate it en masse. It's the hundreds of other successful projects that get nary a mention that the public don't hear about.

[Cyberman]

A good chance to save some money IMO.

[Clippy]

Interesting article detailing this programme.

Suggests it will continue even if the govertment changes as too much money has been invested in it to date.

Has anyone worked on this project? Is it really as screwed up as mentioned?