The Rotherham slams 'unhelpful' SHA

Tags: A coding HIS iS iSoft Lorenzo Meditech NME NPfIT Rotherham US

11 Nov 2009

Brian James, chief executive of The Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust, has said its strategic health authority threatened it with a “double whammy” of costs to stop it going outside the National Programme for IT in the NHS.

In a controversial speech at E-Health Insider Live ’09 about the trust's decision to choose the US Meditech v6.0 electronic patient record system, James said the SHA had been “unhelpful” when it came to progressing its goal of becoming paperless within the next two to three years.

James said: “The SHA gave threats of having to pay for a system we wanted and for the Lorenzo product [which is due to be delivered to the North, Midlands and East of England].

"They wanted to charge us for pulling out of the national programme. There was never a price tag but there was a threat.”

He added: “The SHA really hasn’t helped at all really they have become an obstacle in what we wanted to do. The idea of moving outside of the national programme was fiercely opposed.”

If it had stayed with the national programme, The Rotherham would have eventually been due to implement iSoft’s Lorenzo, through local service provider CSC.

Instead, the trust is implementing a £30m, ten year solution from Meditech. Eight million pounds of that cost is being spent on service change and improvement.

During his presentation James said that the trust procured an alternative solution outside NPfIT because there was no clarity around when Lorenzo would be delivered or whether it would be fit for purpose.

He added: “We want an all singing all dancing paperless system, not Lorenzo Release 1. We were unlikely to see anything like what we wanted to procure until the other side of 2016.”

In response to a question from the audience at The ICC in Birmingham about how the trust avoided the costs threatened by the SHA, James said: “The project is an interim solution - an interim solution likely to last 15 years.”

Providing an update on how the project was progressing, James said that everything was going to plan.

He added: “We did the first coding drop last week and phase one which will involve 14 core and clinical systems will be implemented by July 2010 and phase two will go-live in 2011 with 12 more clinical systems.”

Link: Meditech

Sarah Bruce

Perot to help implement Meditech at Rotherham (17 Jun 2009)
Rotherham picks Meditech for EPR (25 Mar 2009) (8)
Rotherham and Barnsley ASCC procurement (16 Jan 2009) (2)
Foundation trusts tender outside NPfIT (21 Aug 2008) (2)

Readers Comments

Maybe the SHA were just trying to be helpful.

12 Nov 09 10:25

One can commend the Trust for their vision, initiative and courage, they may well end up with a far better system than the rest of us. But the track record of such imports is risky.

They cost hugh amounts of money, take a long time to bed in and require considerable people and skills. You only have to look at the lessons of London. But then again, for a brief time, Camelot was in London.

So maybe the SHA werejust trying to be helpful.

God Save Us from 'Helpful' SHAs

12 Nov 09 14:31

My very extensive experience is that SHAs are full to the brim with 'helpful' people trying to second guess what the service wants.

However, none of them works for an organisation that actually delivers healthcare, so they have next to no understanding of the pressures and requirements of PCTs, and Trusts.

As a result what they end up doing is deeply unhelpful. Further, as appears to be the case here, difference is seen as a threat and treated with an aggressive and bullying attitude.

We do need better co-ordination between organisations, but that should be between organisations that have things in common, not ones that happen to inhabit the same geography

HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY?

12 Nov 09 16:39

Following the stagnation of NHS development by the failure of delivery of LSP programmes, good luck to Rotherham. If this succeeds the will get a system long before the majority of us.

As for huge amounts of money, what have we got for the cost of the national programme?

Another waste of public money?

13 Nov 09 09:33

So, just checking. That's £30m just for Rotherham IN ADDITION to the NHS funding already directed at NPfIT. Not a good deal for the taxpayer; maybe that's why the SHA took a view on staying within the National Programme. And so they should

Don't shoot the messenger?

13 Nov 09 09:38

I'd find it very hard to believe that the SHA weren't themselves under political pressure from the DH and or CfH to block the move. The last they'd want to happen is for the floodgates to be opened and everyone start jumping ship before they have time to try and whip Lorenzo and Millenium into shape, if that will ever be possible. Quite apart from the political embarrasment, as reported in EHI, contracts with the LSP still have to be paid, even if Trusts refuse to take the solutions. However, a key question ask is, how much would it have cost Rotherham to have implemented the national solution, with the same levels of process re-engineering and benefits realisation that have been happening for the meditech implementation - a question for Brian James if you're reading this!

Tell me about the Software!

13 Nov 09 20:41

Please forgive me. I am not currently in the UK so could not attend the E Health Insider event, but my question is about the important thing in this article, the Software.

Rotherham have agreed a hefty price for procurement of this "new" software but from the very little I can find about this Software its User Interface looks as if it was designed by a blind A-Level student and that it is neither innovative or functional.

We are nearly in 2010, is there not a single company who can stand up and proove to all of the NHS trusts that maybe their product is better than anything on offer from CfH and its partners.

Maybe the rumours are true that iSOFT are waiting for failiure from CSC and then will dump an outstanding version of Lorenzo on the table, as it is indeed actually when it works quite a good piece of kit. If people do want to really complain about centrallised systems surely now is the time to put something on the table that does actually break the mould. If there is such a product please shout, if not, let CfH / CSC etc get on with it...

£30m?

13 Nov 09 23:53

What would Sir Gerry Robinson say?

There are 391 Trusts in England, if each were to spend £31m on their systems alone - that would amount to just over £12bn in addition to the £6bn already contracted to the LSPs.

I suspect even Sir Gerry would admit the SHA were trying to be helpful.

....and on it goes....

14 Nov 09 23:35

"...The last they'd want to happen is for the floodgates to be opened and everyone start jumping ship before they have time to try and whip Lorenzo and Millenium into shape, if that will ever be possible..."

...and just how much LONGER should we allow?

Conference Highlight?

keith.swinburne@papworth.nhs.uk

16 Nov 09 08:51

'Slamming the SHA' makes an interesting headline but perhaps misses the point that Brian's speech far from being controversial, was the articulation of a clear strategy developed by Brian and the team at Rotherham with the aid of Perot Systems. A strategy that took into account the needs of the Trust and its patients and best estimates of what could be expected from NPfIT.

The main take away from the speech was the very strong link between clinical/efficiency benefits and the investment that Rotherham is making in this brave and forward thinking initiative.

Yes, there were factors acting against Rotherham and these did include the SHA but also the exagerated claims of likely delivery from CfH etc. etc. 'Another day at the office', one might say!