Welcome Guest | Login | Register | Why Register? |
Newsletter RSS Twitter
18 March 2010 | 21:57 GMT


HOME | NEWS | DOCUMENT LIBRARY | FEATURES | OPINION & ANALYSIS | EVENTS | RESEARCH REPORTS | AWARDS | PODCASTS | VIDEO DIARIES

Government 'remains confident' in NPfIT

Tags: A   Barts and the London   BT   Cerner   Community   CRS   CSC   DH   Financial crisis   iS   iSoft   London   Lorenzo   Millennium   PACS   RiO   Royal Free   Treasury  

15 Apr 2009

The Department of Health has said that it remains confident in the potential of both Cerner’s Millennium and iSoft’s Lorenzo to work effectively, once development and testing are completed.

The vote of confidence in the core electronic patient records software chosen for the National Programme for IT in the NHS comes in response to the second report of the Public Accounts Committee’s on NPfIT, which was published in January.

The Department says that although the delivery of the main care records systems is late - with software development yet to be completed and tested; relatively little clinical functionality delivered; and much work still required on clinical engagement - it retains confidence in its suppliers and the programme.

However, it acknowledges it is disappointed in the slow pace of progress thus far. “It is regrettable that the progress has been slower than anticipated with the NHS Care Record Service at a local trust level." 

It goes on to say while regrettable, delays are preferable to implementing systems that don’t work.

While the response, provided as a Treasury Minute, accepts many of the recommendations of the PAC report, it also makes clear the DH plans to persist with its two remaining systems integrators - BT and CSC - and their chosen software suppliers - iSoft and Cerner.

The ASCC framework contract awarded last year is described as purely a contingency arrangement.

The DH response, however, says that future plans for deployment of Lorenzo in the North, Midlands and East remain at an early stage, with any future national roll-out dependent on the completion of the softare and the success of initial pilots.

“No trusts will be expected to take a Lorenzo Release until the functionality has been demonstrated to work in practice," it adds. It also says that trusts “will be fully involved in the sign-off processes that lead to the implementation goping live."

The Treasury Minute says the problems with Cerner Millennium that resulted in the Royal Free and Barts and the London trusts facing financial crisis have been fixed.

“In London, an improvement programme for Millennium has been completed successfully in the Royal Free Hospital, resulting in the approval by the NHS of a resumption of deployments to acute trusts across London.”

On the four year delay to the delivery of CRS to trusts,  the DH accepts more could be done. “It is true there is potential for greater clinical functionality to be deployed. For both Lorenzo and Millennium, full functionality is planned to be delivered in four releases.”

However, it rejects the PAC’s conclusion that, given the very limited progress on CRS at trust-level, the programme has failed to deliver value for money, and that trusts cannot be expected to take on the burden of deploying CRS systems that do not work effectively.

“The Department agrees with some of the principles behind this recommendation, in particular that trusts should not be expected to deploy care records systems that do not work effectively.

"However, it does not accept that the Programme is not providing value for money at present.” It says “many elements” of the programme have been delivered, pointing to PACS and Rio community systems.

The DH also rejects the PAC’s core recommendation that either CRS deployments improve appreciably within the very near future – the January report recommended a six month deadline be set.

“Although the Department does not agree the six-month timetable, it does agree that the position on the deployment of care records systems needs to improve appreciably over the coming months…”

A promise is made to publish an annual report on progress from the end of the 2009-10 financial year, though the PAC is offered a note on progress at the end of 2009.

Link

Treasury Minutes on the First to the Third Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts 2008-2009

Jon Hoeksma

© 2009 E-HEALTH-MEDIA LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Readers Comments
Add a comment
Readers Comments

1

One of the poll

15 Apr 09 14:14

Question:

Does this statement increase or decrease your confidence in the present government's judgement and its ability to run the country?

 

 


2

Another Question

16 Apr 09 01:17

What is the average survival time of a manager following a vote of confidence from the Board?


3

Another Question

16 Apr 09 01:18

What is the average survival time of a manager following a vote of confidence from the Board?


4

re: Another Question

16 Apr 09 10:50

>>What is the average survival time of a manager following a vote of confidence from the Board?<<

This 'manager' will be in a position to demand a handsome severance package from the board.

Opinion polls cast doubt upon whether the board itself will make it past next Spring.  The manager is safe until then.

My prediction is that if the new board don't act decisively within weeks of their arrival,  this manager will be with us forever - leading us further down the healthcare IT league tables.


5

NPfIT is Dead

17 Apr 09 09:04

Its not even in the morgue or its coffin in the undertakers, its been under the ground for years.

Lets let the Trusts make their own choices as long as we have access to the spine and standard patient records.


6

From the grave ...

17 Apr 09 13:03

Oh dear - poster no.5 - what is all this ?

So - NPfIT is dead is it ? But wait - I see you want some bits exhumed -"as long as we have access to the spine and standard patient records". So they're all right then.

Anything else ? Maybe there might be some good ideas in amongst the bones relating to patient data sharing / security and confidentiality ?

What about all the PACS images ? Fancy keeping them as well ?

NPfIT is not perfect. And imho there ought to be some further movement towards Trust choice based on system interoparability which makes use of the infrastructure that is now in place.

But please don't forget that there are - and continue to be - deliveries from the grave - albiet not as fast as we hoped.


7

PACS and the NPfIT

17 Apr 09 13:41

With respect - I for one was delivering PACS about 15 years ago - long before CfH and the NPfIT......the NPfIT cant take too much credit for PACS I think.


8

standard patient records?

maryhawking@tigers.demon.co.uk

19 Apr 09 20:35

"Lets let the Trusts make their own choices as long as we have access to the spine and standard patient records."

Isn't the problem about "standard patient records" being referred to in secondary care?

Before we had N3 we had N2 (pity no-one thought to commission a gateway to the Internet).

The old version of NHSMail worked - help desk is still working on why the last upgrade has cut my practice off.

I'm a GP - with a good patient record system (EMIS): but GP EPR systems are no more standardised than - er - Lorenzo and Millennium.

I'm not sure they should be (think GPASS).

And if you are talking about the SSEPR (Single Shared Electronic Patient Record - well - just wait for the SRPG report due out in the near future!

If you don't know my views on the risks to patient safety, look at my article last year..

Search
News Features Jobs Newsletters
EHI Tweets HIMSS10’
EHI Tweets HIMSS10’
Most commented
Most commented
Tags
Tags
Top jobs
More
Top jobs

Featured_recruiters
Featured_recruiters