Welcome Guest | Login | Register | Why Register?
HOME | CONTACT | NEWS | DOCUMENT LIBRARY | FEATURES | OPINION & ANALYSIS | EVENTS | RESEARCH REPORTS | CASE STUDIES | POLLS | PODCASTS

South edges towards 'best of breed' approach

Tags: Cerner   CfH   CRS   Fujitsu   Mental Health   Millennium   NPfIT   PAS   RiO   South   Strategic  

04 Oct 2007

The re-negotiation of the NHS IT Programme contract between Fujitsu and the NHS in the South of England appears to be heading towards a best of breed approach, similar to that already adopted by London.

E-Health Insider has learned that a number of NHS trusts in the South are looking at alternatives on mental health and community systems, to the Cerner Millennium product as currently offered by local service provider Fujitsu.

Speaking off the record several trust IT directors have told E-Health Insider that alternatives to Millennium are now strongly favoured for mental health and community services, as part of the ongoing contract reset in the region.

EHI has learned that a number of trust IT departments have told the Southern Programme Board – which heads the Southern Programme for IT (SPfIT) – that the mental health system currently on offer by the LSP is "not ready", and an alternative should be examined urgently.

Some senior sources say that a switch to a best of breed approach is almost inevitable. One NHS IT director told EHI that SPfIT board meetings have been 'heated' when it comes to mental health functionality and said it will be sooner, rather than later, that the LSP will be forced into adopting the best of breed policy, instead of the current best of suite policy.

Best of breed certainly looks the way ahead. Each time we see the Cerner module, a huge fuss is started and no one is happy to have mental health working with it.”
Anonymous NHS IT director in South of England

An anonymous IT director at a large site in the South told EHI: “Best of breed certainly looks the way ahead. Each time we see the Cerner module, a huge fuss is started and no one is happy to have mental health working with it. It is simply not fit for purpose. Our participation in the SPfIT has been attempting to demonstrate this, and now it seems more likely that we are being listened to as Fujitsu and CfH begin to listen and look to other products.”

Minutes from South Central SHA board meetings indicate that progress is being made on the contract reset: “An exercise to identify and prioritise changes to the Cerner product based upon feedback from the live sites has been completed by the NHS. The LSP has been asked to provide a delivery schedule for these changes.”

SPfIT and Fujitsu jointly told EHI: "We are currently undergoing a Contract Reset with our suppliers, Fujitsu Services. The NHS workstreams within the Contract Reset are examining all options based on NHS feedback.

One senior NHS IT representative, told EHI: “There are no specifications set in stone. What has been demonstrated is absolutely dreadful and I believe the programme can’t move on unless we switch systems. I hope Fujitsu read this and realise that.”

Arguably Fujitsu is already half-way to accepting best of breed, having signed with INPS for primary care, McKesson for Child Health and Cerner for everything else. Millennium was originally intended to provide one integrated solution for all areas of healthcare.

As EHI first reported in July, however, a number of mental health trusts in the South have been disappointed with summer demonstrations of Millennium mental health modules offered by LSP Fujitsu.

In the same month Fujitsu awarded a framework contract to McKesson for its CarePlus child health system. The LSP said CarePlus was not a replacement for Millennium but an 'interim' alternative system. A number of trusts are now also pushing hard for interim or alternative systems for mental health.

McKesson confirmed to EHI this week that it is "well advanced" with the implementation of an initial CarePlus site in the South.

As part of the NPfIT Local Ownership Programme (NLOP) contract reset the three strategic health authorities in the South are working with SPfIT to set priorities and define what changes they require to take the NCRS software from Cerner. An initial 'report back' from 'Subject Matter Experts' occurred last Friday.

Andy Clapper, director of Information and Estates, at Hampshire Partnership NHS Trust, told EHI: “Hampshire Partnership NHS Trust has already implemented Cerner Millennium Release zero in mid-Hampshire and is planning to implement further system coverage under the NHS National Programme for IT."

He added: "We are currently involved in the SPfIT 'contract reset'. This has yet to conclude, but a number of options are being investigated, including the use of interim or alternative mental health systems."

Clapper said: “Trusts in this region have supported SPfIT by providing subject matter experts to facilitate design processes and appraise systems. In addition, there has been a greater engagement of individual trusts in considering the issues of functionality and programming as part of the contract reset.”

Les Manley, senior responsible owner for the mental health NHS CRS deployment at the Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust, told EHI that NLOP was providing trusts with more local control: “Our clinical staff are involved in the design process and work in collaboration with colleagues from other mental health trusts. NLOP should provide more local control of the programme."

Manley added: "As part of the transition from central to local ownership we are looking for opportunities to influence what is delivered within each software release so that more functionality is delivered sooner and we are exploring ways to improve development/deployment cycles.”

Similarly, a spokesperson for the Sussex Partnership Trust, said that the move towards NLOP had helped them to ensure the system they receive is the right one.

“There is a delay in the national programme and we have been looking at how to rationalise our existing systems (we have four patient administration systems across Sussex), while we wait for the strategic solution. We are working very closely with the rest of the NHS in the south of England to ensure that the strategic solution allows us to provide first class services to the people who use them.”

One ready alternative RiO, from CSE Servelec, has already proven to be a success for mental health in London, as EHI has reported this week.

Launched at Somerset, which sits in the Southern cluster, a spokesperson told EHI: “In our opinion, we can’t see any reason to switch from RiO to Millennium. I would have to say that we would not even think for one second of switching off RiO with the state of Millennium right now."

The spokesperson added: “To switch to BT’s way of working and adopt best of breed as opposed to a suite package system, would be a positive step forward for us and for the region as a whole. RiO has been worked on over several years and does the job perfectly for us – it would easily fit in with the aims of the programme as a whole.”

The Millennium patient administration system (PAS) has so far been delivered to seven trusts as Release zero. Hampshire is one of those sites – CRS is installed at Winchester- and Clapper says that mental health usage has been ‘disappointing’ to date.

Release one, which is due for release next year now, is meant to enhance the Release zero PAS, with additional support for administrative processes in mental health and community environments, including relevant CDS (common data set) elements, reports and submissions allowing mental health services to be able to replace their existing PAS systems.

The PAS solution should add statutory mental health data items to the standard PAS. These include statutory mental health data items such as legal status classification, registration, admission, discharge and transfer, basic support for Mental Health Act administration, bed management, referral management, outpatient scheduling, community scheduling and contact management and case note tracking.

The deployment of such a solution however, is likely to be subject to delays as mental health trusts change requirements to ensure the system they receive meets their actual needs. 

Links

RiO

Fujitsu Healthcare

Cerner Millennium

Articles 

Six trusts get RiO for mental health

Southern SHAs assess alternatives for mental health IT

© 2007 E-HEALTH-MEDIA LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Readers Comments
Add a comment
Readers Comments

1

best of breed - then integrate for Detailed record

jon.orrell@gp-j81027.nhs.uk

05 Oct 07 10:52

Let Hospitals choose the best of breed from diverse non-CfH suppliers, then let Fujitsu adopt integration software to extract behind the scenes from numerous systems to produce a unified view of a detailed care record. This was already working in Poole in 2003 ! A monolithic rip and replace philisophy has failed. Lets integrate and cooperate between systems.


2

But its only a pas!

05 Oct 07 14:17

The article seems to deal only with PAS plus statutary returns (commissioning datasets and so forth) which is replicating existing, but bringing nothing 'clinical' such as care pathways, integrated decision support, shared care across sectors. This de-scoping of aspirations is so extreme, it is the biggest win for the incapable supplier to change the customer not the deliverable. 'Clincials' are again given so little coverage, CRS was to be a new thing not a replica of the old thing. Good luck to you all anyway, and please hurry, I feel a hiatus coming on!


3

Best of Breed?

05 Oct 07 15:34

Who decides on what is the best of breed? I dont recall a long and detailed procurement process being undertaken to look at functionality, fitness, value, etc. Maybe I blinked and missed it?


4

Best of Breed?

05 Oct 07 20:32

"Who decides on what is the best of breed? I dont recall a long and detailed procurement process being undertaken to look at functionality, fitness, value, etc. Maybe I blinked and missed it?"

It's just beginning. www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/industry/ascc


5

NME?

nhstechie@btinternet.com

06 Oct 07 09:49

At least SPfIT and Fujitsu are considering a range of best of breed products from a range of software suppliers for "interim solutions". The sooner NMEPfIT and CSC do the same and break the iSOFT stranglehold on progress, the better!


6

Desperate

08 Oct 07 10:05

In desparation - we the NHS seem to letting the supplier off the hook through what is a total descoping of the integrated NCRS as detailed in the orginal OBS. This is so far away from the original procurement and OBS - how can it not go out to a new procurement process on a best of breed, interfaced solution - if that is what we are now asking the supplier to provide. If Fujitsu/Cerner can't deleiver against the original OBS - throw them out and start again with a new procurment - or are we so desperate that we will accept anything in order to salvage NHS and supplier credibility. Best of all - give the money to local NHS organisations, detail interoperability standards and let us get on with it rather than being stifled by NPfIT non delivery.


7

No Contest

09 Oct 07 09:26

There is a God after all. This doesn't just apply to Mental Health. The basic idea of a national database available throughout the country is sound, but a majority of the savings and benefits are made in the **interface**. The current approach to design and redesigning Millenium to get the interaction with the user right will not achieve in a decade, what best of breed products have so far - labour saving, innovative products and facilities. Best of breed therefore wins - no contest.

Dixx@reasignals.net


8

Worst of breed

09 Oct 07 10:48

As ever, the language is being loosly used. The LSP has clearly failed to deliver anything approaching the vision. A 'selected' solution for separate parts of a local health community is not the "best of breed". The prices starting to be quoted for these systems are incredible.

But worse, it fails to deliver the integration we so desparately need to manage patients as they move between care settings, and to manage the modernisation agenda which shifts work between locations.


9

Re; Worst of Breed

sue.wilson@swbh.nhs.uk

09 Oct 07 22:57

Well said. I agree entirely. Why on earth would anyone trying to enable modern integrated health care processes, think that to achieve that is to go for "Best of Breed"?

I am sorry to be so candid, but I do think some of you need to really understand clinical care models and how an electronic health record supports them.If you did,you would not be championing "Best of Breed" to be sure.


10

TINA

director@doctors.org.uk

10 Oct 07 12:43

"Why on earth would anyone trying to enable modern integrated health care processes, think that to achieve that is to go for "Best of Breed"?"

errm.... how can one say this nicely? Because it is likely to work and, as successive news stories on this site have made clear, there is no alternative.


11

Oh don't be nice on my account!

sue.wilson@swbh.nhs.uk

10 Oct 07 19:07

There are also a lot of readers in this newsletter and this article who are saying that the vision of the OBS should not be lost.

Those who do have issues at the moment are in the majority talking about traditional PAS System functionality, whether that is acute, community or Mental Health. Certainly not what I have experienced with EHRs.

So you think "Best of Breed" will enable you to support "one stop clinics"? Then do try scheduling appointments across a mis match of systems - Good Luck!

Try supporting continuity of care through fragmented care pathways! Or passing clinical decision support rules/alerts from one system to another!

So there is no alternative is there? I beg to differ. Okay there have been issues with the Cerner Millennium PAS functionality, but that is because it is like comparing a traditional PAS to where it should be with advanced enterprise scheduling. However, please do not anyone tell me the clinicals are an issue. I know from experience that Cerner Millennium is one of the most advanced EHRs there is and has, I would say, all the clinical functionality as specified in the OBS.

I have also seen the first increment of Lorenzo Clinicals and yes what I have seen looks very good.

I have no issue with those who wish to take certain solutions as an interim measure, but change the direction now? Nope that for me, would be a retrograde step.

So yes there is an alternative, and it means looking beyond a PAS and what EHRs truly are.

I make no apologies whatsoever, for being an ardent and passionate champion of an integrated electronic health record.


12

'integrated' health record

11 Oct 07 15:56

I have to say that i agree with the theory of an integrated health care record and all the benefits it would bring, most people do, but i stress that the focus is on the word INTEGRATED - ie NOT a single solution that fits all.

the easisest way to achieve this is to integrate existing best of breed systems that have proven track records in delivering what end users need in an electronic record (administrative and clinical needs)

the enterprise wide solutions proposed by CfH will never deliver the level of clinical reporting detail needed by specialist medical disciplines such as cardiology, diabetes, oncology etc. enterprise wide solutions by their very nature spread very wide but also vey thin- in terms of clinical depth- and the providers of such solutions do not have the interest, expertise or clinical support to develop the clinical functionality needed.


13

complex scheduling

11 Oct 07 19:22

Is it possible to perform multiple complex scheduling operations from different bespoke backend systems and provide a seemless user experience?

.....what do you think? www.expedia.co.uk


14

Strategic mess from "Best of Breed"

11 Oct 07 21:04

The direction of travel for the NHS is supposed to be for more and more complex conditions to be treated out of hospital. surely this needs the complex functionality of an acute hospital EPR, not a "best of breed" solution meeting current low-level community service needs? CRS is going to blockade progress really effectively unless the systems converge rapidly to become almost identical in functionality...in which case, stick with 1 system, surely?


15

"integrated" health record - Great a debate!

sue.wilson@swbh.nhs.uk

11 Oct 07 23:39

You make some very interesting points and though I don't share your views, they are all extremely valid and I do understand where you are coming from. No intent to patronise!

However, for me there are some fundamental points to make:

1. With "Best of Breed" it means interfacing and the problem I have with too much interfacing is that you introduce single points of potential failure which could introduce risk.

2. Take the paper Medical Record. It is a known fact and a CNST standard that multiple instances of notes should not be held. Having separate notes for specialties is to me like having an interface. It has the potential to introduce clinical risk. Why if we do not accept the standard of a fragmented paper medical record, would we therefore accept this in choosing "Best of Breed"?

3. I agree that there is a danger that for specialist areas such as Cardiology, Diabetes etc, that configuration could be focused on the more "generalist" and not the "specialist" areas. However, is that about functionality or the systems are configured to less than they are capable of?

4. Cardiology - what would a specialist system give that an integrated "single" solution would not? Both, for example: - Register patients - Schedule appointments - request test/investigations - document care - anatomical diagrams etc - Prescribe drugs - Interface with Medical Devices Etc etc

To me they all have the same capabilities, but the difference is, if you have a general EPR/EHR which has, say the electronic requests, then would you really at a Trust or across a LHC, allow requesting on the Cardiology system. It would make no sense to separate the clinical activities. How would all clinical staff benefit? So if you accept that certain functionality would be on different systems, then would we really say it is the best solution to have clinical staff logging in and out of systems. Even with "single sign on", there is still the Human Computer Interface issues. There are huge advantages to any health care professional having the same look and feel with a clinical IT system.

5.As for the interest by LSPs/CFH, I received an email (with many others) asking for exemplar clinical documents to define clinical content. This was across all specialties and care professionals.They also have collated examples or input from NSFs, Clinical Tsars, Royal Colleges, the "Do Once and Share Project", other sites who have implemented EPR/EHRs. All of this is being validated by clinicians and includes the specialist areas you have mentioned.

If what I read is the case, then I would say the Interest, Expertise and Clinical Support, does appear to be there.

I certainly felt very encouraged.


16

There is no single solution!

12 Oct 07 10:24

Dear Sue,

There is no single solution that meets all the needs of the NHS. Interfacing is inevitable. It just depends on where the boundaries can be drawn before interfacing is necessary.

Equally, even within these 'single solutions' interfaces effectively exist as clients can buy and implement individual modules. Each module will have its principle engineering architect who explains the data structure and intent to requesting/sending modules. Whether there is an internal 'integrating engine' per module or a master integrating engine for the enterprise solution is a bit of a mute point.

The primary difference between proprietary single solutions and interfaced solutions is the lack of open disclosure and co-operation on the technological architecture and development. It is the commercial nature of the software suppliers that forces us to believe in this single solution option. Hobson's choice!

The only other difference is the Human Interface and this is possibly standardised by using the CUI outputs. Of course, the proprietary suppliers are not motivated to adopt these standards as it reduces their competitive differentials.

Your opinion is lacking true technological strategic insight but valid in the short term. No intent to patronise!


17

Worst of breed II

12 Oct 07 10:39

The problem with the current Southern strategy (to bring us back to the article) is that it is not delivering a joined up vision, nor is it delivering "best of breed" and locally owned, valued and flexible solution.

I appreciate that the great and the good have contributed to the plans, at a high level, and then these get dumbed down on the basis of the shortcomings of the system, the need to be generic across a vast geography, and a complete lack of understanding that the variability needed by individual organisations or local communities is actually quite important to interpret and make the national guidance real and workable given physical, staffing and other constraints.

In my view, the splintering national vision, combined with continued imposition of the buerocratic nightmare of LSP solutions fails both ways.


18

Better to start again

17 Oct 07 13:32

I do not understand how the NHS can tender for an intergrated, 'non institutional, whole patient journey' system - including acute, community, mental health and primary care and then renegitiate to a best of breed interfaced solution as is now being envisaged. Surly this requires a new tender as this is so far away from the original OBS - never mind if this is the right or wrong approach.

This gives the appearance of a supplier who can't deliver colluding with an NHS that did not do due dilligance on the ability for the supplier to deliver looking for a way out where both keep face.

Better to throw out a failing supplier and start again through a tender process where the NHS requirements are explicitely stated than bend NHS requirements to fit what the supplier can deliver. Problem is do our leaders have the honesty or stomach to admit failure and to deal with the massive stink this would cause.

In the meantime - NPfIT has lost all credibility to deliver at the sharp end of the NHS - Trusts and GP Practices - whose general view is if you cannot deleiver the integrated vision of NPfIT - lets go back to doing our own thing and make sure we can support our business with the patient based systems we needed four years ago.

Search
News Features Jobs Newsletters
Most commented
Most commented
Most read
Most read
Tags
Tags
Top jobs
More
Top jobs

Featured_recruiters
Featured_recruiters