Other Documents
From Nhs It Info
(→Guidance for NHS Foundation Trusts on Co-operating with the National Programme for Information Technology (12 April 2006)) |
(→NHS IT chief meets criticism head-on (25 May 2006)) |
||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
http://www.computing.co.uk/computing/analysis/2156832/nhs-chief-meets-criticism-head | http://www.computing.co.uk/computing/analysis/2156832/nhs-chief-meets-criticism-head | ||
| - | + | "When Tony Blair addressed the annual CBI dinner last week he discussed the challenges of modernisation. He also cited the £6bn, 10-year National Programme for NHS IT (NPfIT). ‘The NHS IT strategy is a large and complex programme, but it is having a real impact,’ said the Prime Minister. Blair’s endorsement runs contrary to the condemnation that has dogged the programme in recent months. A group of academics has described the project as ‘fundamentally flawed’ and there have been continued criticisms of delivery delays, changing specifications, disagreements with clinicians, and financial problems for suppliers. Worse is yet to come. A National Audit Office report is due, and NHS IT director general Richard Granger faces a tough grilling by the Public Accounts Committee next month. But Granger, while acknowledging there have been delays and variable supplier performance, says such a revolutionary programme was never going to be easy to implement. ‘We are breaking new ground: some things go well, some things are difficult – and those that are difficult get a disproportionate amount of attention,’ Granger told Computing. ‘People seem to forget that these systems are disruptive and introducing them is disruptive, but we have to hold our nerve,’ he said. . .? | |
==='Computer says no' to Mr Blair's botched £20bn NHS upgrade (4 Jun 2006)=== | ==='Computer says no' to Mr Blair's botched £20bn NHS upgrade (4 Jun 2006)=== | ||
Revision as of 23:21, 4 December 2006
Implementing Information for Health: Even More Challenging Than Expected (10 Jun 2002)
School of Health Information scince, University of Victoria
http://hinf.uvic.ca/archives/Protti.pdf
By Prof. Dennis Protti - "Over the period 6th August to 19th October 2001, and at the invitation of the heads of the Information Policy Unit (IPU) of the Department of Health and the NHS Information Authority, I once again visited England to review the state of progress of Information for Health, taking account of the implications of the emerging changes within the UK health care system. Returning to the UK, it did not take me long to realise that the NHS was once again in the midst of a significant period of transition. It was evident, even to an outsider, that the United Kingdom has a Government which believes that the NHS has to be re-organised and made to be more equitable, accountable, and customer-focused. I sensed that it is a Government that is looking for obvious progress in reforming the public sector - spurred on in particular by negative media coverage about the NHS. In its recent policy document, Shifting the Balance of Power in the NHS (StBOP), the Government expresses its desire to devolve power and decision-making down to the frontline, to decentralise, to provide patients with choice, to give local staff the resources and the freedoms to innovate, develop and improve local services. This desire pervades the changes I observed and sets the tone for my report – these are fascinating, if somewhat daunting, times for the NHS. . ."
Green Book, Appraisal and evaluation in central government (16 Jan 2003)
HM Treasury
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/economic_data_and_tools/greenbook/data_greenbook_index.cfm
"Information is needed for a market to operate efficiently. Buyers need to know the quality of the good or service to judge the value of the benefit it can provide. Sellers, lenders and investors need to know the reliability of a buyer, borrower or entrepreneur. This information must be available fully to both sides of the market, and where it is not, market failure may result. This is known as 'asymmetry of information' and can arise in situations where, for example, sellers have information that buyers don't (or vice versa) about some aspect of product or service quality. Information asymmetry can restrict the quality of the good traded, resulting in 'adverse selection'. Another possible situation is where a contract or relationship places incentives upon one party to take (or not take) unobservable steps that are prejudicial to another party. This is known as 'moral hazard', an example of which is the tendency of people with insurance to reduce the care they take to avoid or reduce insured losses." [The CfH team admitted at our meeting in April that there was a considerable amount that they did not know about the technical details of the systems they were buying. Indeed, the whole nature of output-based specification (OBS) seems to ensure information asymmetry and moral hazard as defined below.]
New NHS IT (Feb 2004)
Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/POSTpn214.pdf
"The Government has recently signed contracts for a £6 billion modernisation of NHS computer systems in England. This national IT programme has four main parts: electronic patient records, electronic appointment bookings and electronic transmission of prescriptions, along with an upgraded NHS broadband network. However, it involves both managing a large IT procurement and imposing change on the highly devolved NHS. This POSTnote outlines the main projects in the national programme and their potential benefits, then examines key concerns, such as confidentiality, funding and involving clinicians."
The Spine, an English national programme (25 Mar 2005)
Ringholm White Paper
http://www.ringholm.de/docs/00970_en.htm
"The English Spine (the national IT infrastructure for healthcare) will provide a commonly accessible patient based resource, making information from multiple sources available to all those with a legitimate care relationship to the patient. This includes all health professionals whether they work in a hospital, in primary care or in community service. The architecture of the Spine is based on a centralized partial care record, supported by directory services and HL7 version 3 messaging."
Transformational Government: Enabled by Technology (Nov 2005)
Cabinet Office Report
http://www.cio.gov.uk/documents/pdf/transgov/transgov-strategy.pdf
". . . Information Assurance: despite the difficulties of a fast moving and hostile world, underpinning ITsystems must be secure andconvenient for those intended to use them. The Government will further develop its risk management model to provide guidance on this, approved by the Central Sponsor for Information Assurance. And it will develop a simple, tiered architecture for its own networks tosupport this model in practice, withan updated application of the protective marking scheme for electronically held information. Government will also play its part to promote public confidence by leading a public/private campaign on internet safety and by a new scheme to deliver awider availability of assured products and services. . . Identity Management: government will create an holistic approach to identity management, basedon a suite of identity management solutions that enable the publicand private sectors to manage risk and provide cost-effective services trusted by customers and stakeholders. These will rationalise electronic gateways and citizen and business record numbers. They will converge towards biometric identity cards and the National Identity Register. This approach will also consider thepractical and legal issues of making wider use of the national insurance number to index citizenrecords asa transition path towards an identity card."
System Design Or Social Change (6 Apr 2006)
Parliamentary IT Committee (PITCOM) on the subject of Public Sector 'IT' procurement
http://www.pitcom.org.uk/reports/Malcolm-Mills-talk.doc
Submission by Malcolm Mills: ". . . I suggest three things. Immediately, to increase the success rate and restore confidence, I would simplify, de-risk and specify a more evolutionary set of requirements for endeavours of this kind. I would then increase their delivery time-scales to be more in keeping with the much longer timeframes we know from experience are associated with achieving successful social change. In the medium term, I would do two things: Recognising that the major risks, and by far the greater costs, lie with the addressing people issues, and not technology ones, HM Treasury should commission new ‘Green Book’ appraisal guidelines for scrutinising the budgeting and planning of socio-technical endeavours during the Gateway decision-making process. And finally, faced with clear evidence of an acute shortage of interdisciplinary skills and competences in Government and Industry to design and manage the range of socio-technical systems in the public programme, a task force should be established to examine how the Nation might produce a sufficient number of competent and skilled people able to lead, develop, and then support, such critical endeavours. . ."
Guidance for NHS Foundation Trusts on Co-operating with the National Programme for Information Technology (12 April 2006)
Monitor, Independent Regulator of NHS Trusts
http://www.e-health-insider.com/tc_domainsBin/Document_Library0282/NPfIT_guidance_Final_120406.pdf?
". . . Condition 20 of the terms of authorisation for all NHS foundation trusts states that: “The Trust shall participate in the national programme for information technology, in accordance with any guidance issued by Monitor.” This note summarises how Monitor will interpret the requirement on NHS foundation trusts to participate in The National Programme for Information Technology (NPfIT) as administered by Connecting for Health (CfH) and constitutes Monitor’s guidance under Condition 20. Monitor recently published Risk Evaluation for Investment Decisions by NHS Foundation Trusts 1 which relates to high risk investments as defined by either size or risk. Each investment necessary under NPfIT should be evaluated against these definitions to confirm their status. In any event the frameworks in the guidance are good practice which should be applied to any investment decision undertaken, including those within NPfIT. . ."
NHS IT chief meets criticism head-on (25 May 2006)
Computing
http://www.computing.co.uk/computing/analysis/2156832/nhs-chief-meets-criticism-head
"When Tony Blair addressed the annual CBI dinner last week he discussed the challenges of modernisation. He also cited the £6bn, 10-year National Programme for NHS IT (NPfIT). ‘The NHS IT strategy is a large and complex programme, but it is having a real impact,’ said the Prime Minister. Blair’s endorsement runs contrary to the condemnation that has dogged the programme in recent months. A group of academics has described the project as ‘fundamentally flawed’ and there have been continued criticisms of delivery delays, changing specifications, disagreements with clinicians, and financial problems for suppliers. Worse is yet to come. A National Audit Office report is due, and NHS IT director general Richard Granger faces a tough grilling by the Public Accounts Committee next month. But Granger, while acknowledging there have been delays and variable supplier performance, says such a revolutionary programme was never going to be easy to implement. ‘We are breaking new ground: some things go well, some things are difficult – and those that are difficult get a disproportionate amount of attention,’ Granger told Computing. ‘People seem to forget that these systems are disruptive and introducing them is disruptive, but we have to hold our nerve,’ he said. . .?
'Computer says no' to Mr Blair's botched £20bn NHS upgrade (4 Jun 2006)
Sunday Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/04/nhs04.xml
Granger: bricks of the digital NHS coming together (16 Jun 2006)
e-Health Insider
http://www.e-health-insider.com/news/item.cfm?ID=1949
Richard Granger interview.
Information Governance in NHS's NPfIT: A case for Policy Specification (2006)
Moritz Y. Becker, Microsoft Research (To appear in International Journal of Medical Informatics, 2006.)
http://www2.cantabgold.net/users/m.y.becker.98/publications/becker06ijmi.pdf
Plundering_The_Public_Sector
Extracts from the book by David Craig, provided here with the author's and publisher's permission.
NHS IT systems crisis: the story so far (30 Aug 2006)
Computer Business Review
http://www.cbronline.com/article_cbr.asp?guid=35AC0F09-6C33-4D0E-AC2C-D912E2AA6042
"The NHS's Connecting for Health plan to update and link up health service systems have hit the headlines in recent weeks thanks to reported problems with key software supplier iSoft, and criticisms of the project's management and cost. CBR has been tracking the project since its creation, and in this article has brought together the story so far, beginning with the handing out of contracts in late 2003. . ."
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activities/health/docs/publications/ehealthimpactsept2006.pdf eHealth is Worth it
An assessment of "The economic benefits of implemented eHealth solutions at ten European sites (Sep 2006)
European Commission, Directorate General Information Society and Media, ICT for Health Unit
Dying for Data (Oct 2006)
IEEE Spectrum
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/oct06/4589
"A comprehensive system of electronic medical records promises to save lives and cut health care costs—but how do you build one?" (Robert N. Charette)
‘Gung-ho' attitude scuppers public-sector IT projects (2 Oct 2006)
Computer Weekly
"Government IT heads’ ‘gung-ho’ and reckless attitudes to risk is wasting millions of taxpayer money on over-complex, poorly tested systems, according to a think-tank study. Contrary to the stereotype, many public-sector managers have a ‘reckless streak’ and are dazzled by the potential of the technology, according to the Where next for transformational government? report by The Work Foundation, (September 2006)"
What CfH Could and Should Learn from Defence Procurement (Oct 2006)
Malcolm Mills
IT and Modernisation (9 Oct 2006)
http://www.newstatesman.com/pdf/itmodernisation2006.pdf
New Statesman
New Statesman Round Table Discussion
