Over the last six months, even Accenture, the IT consultants cut their loses from the project and walked away, which signals the kind of state it is in. With the resignation of Granger it's been questioned (by Tony Collins at Computer Weekly) whether the project will even stay together. For all its problems though, Granger was the powerhouse behind even the small progress.
The Sunday Times quotes Tony Collins saying that the risk is that the project will fall apart, he goes on to say
"The programme has highlighted the need for proper electronic records in the NHS, but you have to ask what it has achieved that trusts could not have done on their own. It has also not delivered on the main objective of a centralised patient record system."Collins is absolutely right on his point about Trusts. What should have happened at the national level was simply the drawing up of a standardised communication framework, whilst the actual front-ends systems were left to Trusts based on an eventual goal of integration later on. Trying to build an integrated nation-wide system from the initial design phase was always a mistake, and it clearly resulted in a failure to assess risk properly.
6 comments:
. the programme is not over budget. go to your local hospital and state that you do not want your records to be placed on the system at all and then maybe you will die sooner and leave more nhs resources for those who think before the write / die.
also you should think about pulling this stupid post down before you get sued under art 16 UN HRC as you are attacking another human being's reputation and he has rights too
"the programme is not over budget." - yes it is.
"also you should think about pulling this stupid post down before you get sued under art 16 UN HRC as you are attacking another human being's reputation and he has rights too"
err what drugs are you on?
Article 16 of the UNCHR:
1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
I suggest you take your meds and leave now. If you read my post you'll see I actually said the project was only still alive because of him. The programme was though a stupid one from political masters that was technologically way too ambitious and exemplifies the worst practice in large IT projects.
1. Re Article 16 of the UNCHR. It is, like the rest of the UNCHR, ignorant, badly (probably intentionally, so it can be open to "interpretation") worded garbage. For one thing, read item 3 again: "The family is a natural and fundamental group unit of society ..."
What the bloody hell is a "group unit"??? A communal drink?
First item: "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion have the right to marry ..." thereby leaving the door, wide, wide, open for muslims to claim the right to marry four wives. It is intentionally vague,in that sneaky kind of way of EU jiggery-pokery.
Anyway, that's not the point of my post.
The British must dump the tyrannical, inept, inefficient NHS. It is a monstrous, lunatic concept and is the most powerful weapon of control any government in history has had over the citizenry.
Posing as "responsible guardians of the public purse", they dictate private behaviour - no smoking, only certain rations for drinking, iron-clad "guidelines" for fatty, greasy or sweet food.
Once the NHS is privatised, the vast government department, with tens of thousands of leaches drawing salaries and pensions from money you have earned will have absolutely no say in how you live your life. Your insurance company will calculate your premiums according to your behaviour. Smoke? Higher premiums. Your choice.
Having health insurance should be a legal requirement, as is having a licence to drive your car. It should be up to the individual to shop around and decide who to favour with their custom. And which doctors they wish to visit and which hospitals in which to have their procedures should also be entirely up to the customer.
France's system is well run, as is everything in France, but the government still monitors doctors to see who is wasting state money by prescribing unnecessary antibiotics. And it still dictates behaviour.
As always, the only solution to cost saving and efficiency is the free market.
The NHS is a Stalinesque monster. No wonder the socialists love it so much.
The UK and French healthcare systems run from fundamentally different foundations.
In France people can chose their doctors, and if they don't like what they get they go for a second opinion from the doctor down the road. They have to pay part of the cost (typically 20%) themselves or carry private insurance for their share. The state controlled costs by regulating prices for doctors, hospitals and drugs at well below the level in most other countries. Prices controlled, volume and choice relatively unconstrained.
The UK starts from the premise that the state knows best. They decide who you see and what procedures and drugs they can use. Prices are uncontrolled, but volume and choice is micro managed.
Both systems are collapsing. Hence their desire for massive and unworkable IT systems to try to administer irredeemably flawed processes rather than rethinking the fundamental basis on which healthcare is purchased.
It is the the biggest source of failure in all IT projects, trying to automate yesterdays process rather than asking what features are actually needed to deliver the functions required for the future.
You make good points, Anonymous. The French system, because it does allow for initiative on the part of the patient, and because the French are better, in any case, at running large projects, is much superior to the NHS.
You are right, though, in everything you say. When I lived there, I had a friend whose husband is a doctor, and he lived in dread of the man from the government coming round and saying something to the effect, "Our computer records note that you have been prescribing an awful lot of this very expensive drug. Can we see your records to justify this, please?" The French system is running out of money, too, as you say.
Where I live - Mexico - there are free hospitals for the very poor.
Everyone else pays. No subsidies of any kind from the government. The results: excellent, state-of-the-art care and spotless facilities.
Health insurance is available at competitive rates.
Nationalised medical care, under whatever guise, is a poisoned chalice from every point of view. It is Stalinesque and has no business existing in a democracy. I have a horror of communist constructs.
Good debate from your contributors above.
But back to the point of your post. The whole project has been doomed from the outset because the medics have not been convinced that it will actually improve the care of patients. Yes, get rid of the old paper-based systems over time, create electronic pictures of scans & x-rays, put lab results on line and introduce electronic prescribing, etc. These are really useful and have been happening anyway.
But what use is the electronic choose and book system to GPs and hospital doctors? Ask them and you'll find it is very little. Especially as the farce of patient choice has been shown to be a pointless exercise when local PCTs intervene between the GP and the consultant to decide if the referral is really necessary. This questions their professional judgement and directly conflicts with the duty of care they feel they have to their patients.
Perhaps this was one of the "forces of conservatism" that Blair wanted to defeat.
Post a Comment