Welcome Guest | Login | Register | Why Register? |
Newsletter RSS Twitter
13 March 2010 | 01:16 GMT


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

Politicians question major IT projects

Tags: A   Cameron   CfH   emergency   Google   Google Health   Government   Health Vault   HIS   hospital doctors   Information   iS   Microsoft   Office   Savings   UK  

27 Apr 2009

Opposition politicians are lining up to promise to scrap major IT projects as the full scale of the coming public spending squeeze becomes apparent.

But home secretary Jacqui Smith has indicated that the government plans to press ahead with plans to store communications data and make it available to the emergency services, health and other public bodies.

Liberal Democrat Vince Cable wrote in the Independent last week that his party would scrap “the NHS IT project” alongside ID cards and other projects, in order to save money.

And Conservative party leader David Cameron told his party’s spring conference that he would scrap NHS Connecting for Health’s “electronic patient record system”, the children’s database ContactPoint, and ID cards as part of his party’s plans for “a new age of austerity”.

In his speech, Cameron, who had previously pledged to “scrap the NHS supercomputer” made a distinction between CfH and its role in delivering ‘strategic’ electronic patient record systems to the health service.

“Look at computerising the NHS,” he said. “Labour say: let's call in the expensive consultants. Let's commission a massive IT project. Let's make the state more powerful with a new, centralised computer to store everyone's health records.

“The result: NHS Connecting for Health, costing over £12 billion. One part of it is the electronic patient records system - a central state-run database designed to let GPs, hospital doctors and nurses share your medical notes.

“We would have said: today, you don't need a massive central computer to do this. People can store their health records securely online; they can show them to whichever doctor they want.

"And when they're in control of their own health records, they're more interested in their health, so they might start living more healthily, saving the NHS money.”

Cameron also argued that the Google Health and Microsoft Health Vault personal health record platforms would “cost virtually nothing to run, so this is where some really big savings could be made.”

Despite the turn against large IT projects, the Home Office yesterday launched its promised consultation on the storage and use of communications data.

Although the consultation insists that the government has no plans for a “centralised database to store all communications data” it also says “doing nothing is not an option” and that a “middle way” is needed.

As a first step, it says communications service providers based in the UK will be required to keep “all the data” that public authorities “might” need, including third-party data that crosses their networks.

The consultation also raises the possibility of requiring communications service providers to match their own data to this third party traffic, so public bodies could more easily retrieve the information they wanted.

Both options would include significant extra costs – put at £2 billion by the consultation document.

Link: Protecting the Public in a Changing Communications Environment

Lyn Whitfield

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

Readers Comments
Add a comment
Readers Comments

1

The beautiful (political) game

28 Apr 09 09:24

Surely, if Mr Cameron was serious about his plans to make the NHS more independent from 'meddling ministers', he would be suggesting that decisions about NHS IT would be for an independent NHS board charged with running the service in the best interests of patients, rather than pontificating about what he would do about the 'NHS supercomputer' (sic)?

Anyone for political football?


2

And they want to run our country

28 Apr 09 10:45

Just how much twaddle can our MPs talk, its amazing.

What on earth is an NHS super computer, do they even understand the basics of IT, their statements would say no.

Google as the system of choice I say! Bluster, bluster, bluster!!!!


3

Its a Question of Trust

28 Apr 09 10:47

"...... other public bodies"

I don't trust this government and I know for a fact that some of the public bodies in question who will have access to this information have a dubious workforce themselves - who's checking on them please?

Local councils have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted (abuse of RiPA powers).

 

No sorry I cannot suport this.


4

Flailing for headlines.. sad really and so uninformed

28 Apr 09 15:57

Mr C - If only things were that simple!

To move to a consumer only model seems reckless in the extreme.  Yes PHR/ PMRs will have their place but not at the centre of the pile, surely not???


5

Misinformation got us to the current mess

29 Apr 09 11:08

Has Mr Cameron cared to look at how Healthvault and Google are getting their information in the USA (fed from clinical systems in hospitals as well as the Patient's own entries), or why countries worldwide are looking to join up information, especially succeeding in Scandanavian countries, or indeed why we have had paper medical casenotes for the last century ?

I don't suppose so. The difference between the UK and most of these other models is the (in my humble view) insane mantra that "the private sector" is the only place to design and manage our public services. As with PFI and many other infrastructure projects, this has proven an expensive and predictable mistake, private companies exist to make profit. There is no such thing as partnership working.

The CfH/LSP interposition between software supplier and NHS customer, and obsessive secrecy have been the primary design fault with this sorry saga.

To treat patients safely, record and defend what clinicians have done, the NHS needs to hold records of care. I think Patient Held records are great and empowering, but in a court of law, they could conveniently be 'lost' if it suits the plaintiff. The CfH approach has failed so far to bring us from the paper age.


6

So let's all just use Microsoft then?

msej449@ntlworld.com

02 May 09 19:53

Microsoft Healthvault? Oh yes, let's trust our data on the software that's responsible for the worst breaches of security in IT. How easy it all is - just have a chat with your local Microsoft salesman and there's your healthcare IT strategy sorted.


7

What an Idiot!

05 May 09 15:49

Comments like this playing on people ignorance.

For one I doubt the Government could afford to buy out of the National Contracts it has signed up to and secondly, does Cameron really expect every person in the UK will take responsibility for managing their own Health Records?

The system would never work as no Doctor worth his salt would trust a patient managed record and would want to reassure him/herself.

The purpose of having such a system is that it can be trusted, accessible and used at the point of care.

Patient can and should be able to access this, but should never be relied upon to maintain their own records.

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