• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "NHS electronic records 'achieving little' for patients"

Collapse

  • Spacecadet
    replied
    Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
    Dear old Mr Richard Granger. In the words of his dear old mum:

    ''I can't believe that my son is running the IT modernisation programme for the whole of the NHS."

    Health service IT boss 'failed computer studies' | Society | The Observer

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Greg
    replied
    Originally posted by PSK View Post
    I've not read any of the NAO reports in detail and I wasn't close enough to have a firm opinion over what was well or badly managed though I recall the NHS IT 'Czar' was a private sector consultant (Deloitte?) before being recruited to deliver CfH (though he became a civil servant on recruitment - possibly the highest paid civil servant at that time?).

    I'd be interested in the opinions of those involved regarding the proportion of delivery done by civil servants compared with private sector - the impression I got was that most delivery was outsourced to the private sector big systems integrators, there was a considerable 'one man band' contractor population within the programme though I'd be surprised if the big strategic decisions were't made by senior civil servants and the politicians (with the support of one or more of the big consultancies).
    Dear old Mr Richard Granger. In the words of his dear old mum:

    ''I can't believe that my son is running the IT modernisation programme for the whole of the NHS."

    Health service IT boss 'failed computer studies' | Society | The Observer

    Leave a comment:


  • PSK
    replied
    I've not read any of the NAO reports in detail and I wasn't close enough to have a firm opinion over what was well or badly managed though I recall the NHS IT 'Czar' was a private sector consultant (Deloitte?) before being recruited to deliver CfH (though he became a civil servant on recruitment - possibly the highest paid civil servant at that time?).

    I'd be interested in the opinions of those involved regarding the proportion of delivery done by civil servants compared with private sector - the impression I got was that most delivery was outsourced to the private sector big systems integrators, there was a considerable 'one man band' contractor population within the programme though I'd be surprised if the big strategic decisions were't made by senior civil servants and the politicians (with the support of one or more of the big consultancies).

    Leave a comment:


  • TykeMerc
    replied
    The lessons learnt exercise on a failed £7bn project will cost a fair few million...

    I'm willing to bet all of the conclusions will have been predicted in the early stages and are probably on the unresolved section of the risk register. Of course mismanagement by senior civil servants and politicians won't feature heavily.

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Greg
    replied
    Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post
    err why can't they just install the same version of Word, use a few common templates and store the documents in a directory with the patients name and Cipher key unlockable by the Doctors GP

    £7bn.....pheweee
    Agreeing common templates for clinical documentation is what I do for a living (or some of what I do). One of the zillion difficulties is that hospital doctors have a dual accountability - to their employer and to their professional body (college). As for GPs, they'll do what they like.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlasterBates
    replied
    err why can't they just install the same version of Word, use a few common templates and store the documents in a directory with the patients name and Cipher key unlockable by the Doctors GP

    £7bn.....pheweee

    Leave a comment:


  • PSK
    replied
    Happy to be corrected but I thought GP practices were profit-making private sector bodies, doing what I'd expect businesses to do. Even without GP commissioning being introduced, equity GPs can earn large payments - Anger over £665,000 for Britain¿s highest-paid GP | Mail Online

    I've no criticism of these business men/women, though think it seems clever that they are not perceived as running profit-motivated businesses.

    Leave a comment:


  • russell
    replied
    Originally posted by MarillionFan View Post
    The issue isn't technology. The technology is easy. Canada have had integrated primary/secondary healthcare for 20+ years. There are already data standards in place.

    The problem is politics. Patient data is 'owned' by individual
    Surgeries with Doctors who think they know best. It is
    Incredible the notes they write on patient records which they don't want shown elsewhere. It is the doctors themselves. If you look at EMIS the leading supplier for
    primary healthcare you'll see they hold this programme as hostage.

    Within the British armed services integrated health systems already exist. A medic can pull up a soldiers medical records on a handheld while flying in a helicopter FFS. We've been sold short by doctors, tosser liberals, weak leadership and consultancies at the trough.

    I agree the technical aspect isn't the problem it's organising all the awkward public sector people to get on board with it.

    Leave a comment:


  • MarillionFan
    replied
    Originally posted by Spacecadet View Post
    They should have just settled on a data standard which hospitals/trusts and other healthcare organisations had to adhere to, allow them all to go electronic organically and then move towards a centralised repository
    The issue isn't technology. The technology is easy. Canada have had integrated primary/secondary healthcare for 20+ years. There are already data standards in place.

    The problem is politics. Patient data is 'owned' by individual
    Surgeries with Doctors who think they know best. It is
    Incredible the notes they write on patient records which they don't want shown elsewhere. It is the doctors themselves. If you look at EMIS the leading supplier for
    primary healthcare you'll see they hold this programme as hostage.

    Within the British armed services integrated health systems already exist. A medic can pull up a soldiers medical records on a handheld while flying in a helicopter FFS. We've been sold short by doctors, tosser liberals, weak leadership and consultancies at the trough.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spacecadet
    replied
    They should have just settled on a data standard which hospitals/trusts and other healthcare organisations had to adhere to, allow them all to go electronic organically and then move towards a centralised repository

    Leave a comment:


  • NHS electronic records 'achieving little' for patients

    Another nail in the coffin for this project?

    Anyone currently working on this?

    What's the view from the coalface?

Working...
X