British Computer Society
From Nhs It Info
Central NHS IT may not work, warns BCS (Computer Weekly, 29 Aug 2006)
"The British Computer Society has backed calls for a technical review of the health service’s £12.4bn IT programme, questioning whether the scheme’s centralised approach will work in the complex structure of the NHS. . . Some of the BCS’s concerns are set out by Glyn Hayes, chair of the society’s Health Informatics Forum, in a letter sent to Martyn Thomas. Thomas, a visiting professor at Oxford University, was one of 23 senior academics who wrote to the House of Commons Health Committee calling for an independent technical audit of the NPfIT. Hayes’ letter says the BCS is greatly concerned that a centralised IT approach will not work in the complex organisational structure of the NHS. He tells Thomas, “I do indeed support your proposal for a review of NPfIT.” . . ."
BCS 'has not changed mind' about CfH review (e-Health Insider, 30 Aug 2006)
http://www.e-health-insider.com/news/item.cfm?ID=2096
"The British Computer Society has denied changing its tack by backing the growing calls for a technical review of the health service’s £12.4bn IT programme. Glyn Hayes, chair of the society’s Health Informatics Forum, has defended his position following a report in this week’s Computer Weekly, which detailed a private email from Dr Hayes to Martyn Thomas. . . However, Dr Hayes told E-Health Insider: “Our position has not changed at all. We are wholly in support of NHS Connecting for Health and the national programme.” The BCS has always had concerns about centralising data and the structure of the clinical record but had expressed these directly to NHS CfH, he added. “We have acted as a critical friend,” he said. On the question of a centralised versus a distributed architecture, he said: “There is an argument that says it would be better having [data stored in] individual systems as long as they could communicate with each other. We are not arguing for that but it is a question that needs discussing.” He said the BCS was in favour of a technical review but that it must not hold up the project. He said: “If the politicians lose their nerve because of pressure from Computer Weekly then the health service is going to suffer.” Professor Thomas admitted to being mystified by the furore. “I believe that Glyn Hayes, the BCS health informatics forum and the 23 academics are completely in agreement about what needs to be done to help the national programme,” he said. Dr Thomas added: “I think the BCS is walking a very delicate line and believe that they can influence the national programme better by talking quietly with Richard Granger and his team and believe that the very public campaign that Computer Weekly is running is causing damage. I am not convinced that they are right.” . . "
Call for co-operation on new way forward for NPfIT (e-Health Insider, 11 Sep 2006)
http://www.ehiprimarycare.com/news/item.cfm?ID=2117
"A call for the ‘old guard’ of health informatics and the ‘new kids on the block’ to work together to take the National Programme for IT forward has come from the British Computer Society Primary Health Care Specialist Group chair. Speaking at the group’s annual meeting in Oxfordshire, Ewan Davis, said relations between the two groups had been characterised by mutual disrespect “and that gets us nowhere.” He said some the old guard had said “here we go again” and assumed they had nothing to learn from the new arrivals, while the new kids coming from oil wells and supermarket chains and bringing new levels of skills in software engineering and project management had failed to recognise the expertise of people already in health informatics. Davis emphasised the need to work together and explained some of the thinking group members had been doing to take the national programme forward. . . The solutions under scrutiny were those that could integrate a number of heterogenous solutions, crossing boundaries of functionality and geography, but which also allowed competition between vendors. . . Analysing the reasons for the need for alternatives, Davis pointed to the nature of the NHS. “One of the reasons we have had problems with the current approach is that people perceive the NHS as a corporate entity and then are surprised when it doesn’t behave like a corporate entity.” His alterative was to see to NHS as a supply chain – a group of organisations of varying size and power that simultaneously compete and co-operate towards a common goal."
DH carrying out 'confidential' review of CfH (e-Health Insider, 15 Nov 2006)
http://www.e-health-insider.com/news/item.cfm?ID=2266
"E-Health Insider has learned that an urgent 'confidential' review of the NHS IT programme and structure of Connecting for Health, the agency responsible for its delivery, has been launched by the new chief executive of the NHS David Nicholson. The new boss of the health service has commissioned a review of the £6.2bn NHS digitisation project as one of his first actions since taking up post in September. The CfH review, which has already begun taking evidence, is understood to be focusing on reviewing how to re-structure CfH to make it and the programme it is charged with delivering more locally responsive. . .Calls for a review of the project, including calls from both the British Computer Society and from a group of 23 eminent computer academics, have all previously been rejected. . . Dr Glyn Hayes, vice-president of the BCS and chair of its health informatics forum said: "If this review is designed to refocus CfH towards a more local implementation approach we are all in favour as we want those successes that have been achieved to be built on." Dr Hayes added that a local implementation approach potentially provided the way to address a lot of the very real anxieties around confidentiality. The BCS is itself due to publish a full review of the technical architecture of the NHS IT programme within the next two weeks."
