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

Newcastle expands use of Millennium

Tags: UPMC   A   Cerner   England   Millennium   Newcastle   NPfIT   Scheduling   UK  

17 Dec 2009

Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust has become the first in UK to roll-out order and results and medicines management applications from Cerner.

The trust, which went live with a Cerner Millennium patient administration system outside the National Programme for IT in the NHS at the beginning of November, started switching on the additional functionality earlier this month.

Steve Leggetter, e-records programme director, told E-Health Insider: “As of last week, we started switching on the order and results features and then rolling them out ward by ward.

“The trust has now completed the roll-out of orders and results in all inpatient wards across the Freeman Hospital.”

Leggetter added that in addition to switching on the PAS, all theatre bookings and scheduling are live on the system, as well as A&E. This completes the scope of phase one of the roll out.

The trust has also gone live with medications management on a 30-bed nephrology inpatient ward in part of the newly built renal services centre.

Andrew Heed, lead pharmacist, e-prescribing, said Ward 32 had been chosen because it has a high volume of high complexity drugs and a stable patient group.

“Everyone’s attitude is that if we can do it in Ward 32, we can do it anywhere in the hospital,” he said.

The ward is still running paper processes for some of its patients, but this will be taken away when the functionality has been rolled out at the rest of the Freeman.

Heed said: “There will be a gradual roll-out until the end of the month and then that will be accelerated in January with a few wards a week until it is complete.”

Newcastle took a decision in April 2008 to reject the offering by local service provider CSC and software provider iSoft, who are contracted to supply the Lorenzo electronic patient record to the North, Midlands and East of England under the national programme.

Instead, it signed a contract directly with University Pittsburgh Medical Centre to implement five applications from Cerner: patient administration, inpatient order entry, pharmacy management, A&E and operating room systems.

Leggetter added: “We’ve still got a lot of implementation to do in terms of roll out; such as orders and results into outpatients. We’ve got the RVI [Royal Victoria Infirmary] to do in terms if orders and results and meds. And then we’ve got business as usual change coming.”

EHI understands that the same functionality is available to other trusts implementing the system and will be turned on as they progress through their Cerner product roadmap.

Links: UPMC; Cerner

Read more: about reporter Sarah Bruce's visit to Newcastle to see Millennium in action in our news analysis: Tooning up Millennium

Sarah Bruce

Related Articles
Related Articles

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

Readers Comments
Add a comment
Readers Comments

1

Medicine Management

17 Dec 09 12:28

In this context, what is medications management?


2

Good news

17 Dec 09 16:41

And no comments; all we seem to want to do is put ourselves down!

I say Huzza and jolly well done chaps!!!


3

no comments!

18 Dec 09 12:34

quite simple if you work there and make one you won't for much longer!!

Allegedly lots of patients turning up for appointments that aren't on the system, lots of unhappy staff(you don't seriously think anybody would tell the EH reporter) and big backlogs in certain areas.

Well done to Newcastle for another excellent PR job

 


4

Publish and be damned?

21 Dec 09 14:51

Any comments which are negative towards Cerner generally are not published. Can't think why though :-)

If we're lucky this will get published as there are no comments here that are defamatory.


5

Re: publish and be damned

lyn@e-health-media.com

21 Dec 09 15:24

E-Health Insider does not reject comments just because they are about Cerner. Unless they are defamatory or libellous; in which case, as a publisher, we cannot let them through for obvious reasons.

If the previous poster wants to give us an example of comments about Cerner that have not got through and which are not defamatory or libellous, he or she is welcome to get in touch.

Other readers are more than welcome to comment on Cerner as on anything else. Indeed, we welcome comments on all subjects. Also tip offs and further information, if people think we are missing the full picture.

Lyn Whitfield, managing editor, E-Health Insider.


6

No negative comments

21 Dec 09 21:41

It is certainly true that Cerner are masters of good PR - however, it doesn't take more than 5 minutes to see queues at Outpatients clinics, missing orders, disgruntled nurses and admin staff if you visit a hospital where the PAS implementation has gone badly wrong.

So, maybe rather than bleating abour Cerner Millennium, the naysayers should either go with the evidence - that it has been installed in Kingston and Newcastle with relatively little disruption, or if they still don't believe it - shut up and wait - because CDS will prove the point.

I here lots about evidence based healthcare - but when the evidence suggests that a system implementation has gone well, it suddenly seems to be ignored - much better to rely on hearsay, rumour and vested interests...


7

Not about Cerner?

22 Dec 09 10:00

Positions being adopted concerning Newcastle may be following a more subtle agenda than praising or criticising Cerner.

Cerner may be relevant only in that their mature system exists and has been fully deployed in NHS hospitals under two different models (several times over now).

It looks like both Newcastle and Kingston deployments have gone relatively smoothly (although it's not over until the bean counters have sung). Other examples of CfH and non-CfH Cerner implementations are also to be found.

The crucial and most politically sensitive question can perhaps now be answered beyond reasonable dispute / opinion.

Does the CfH / LSP deployment model offer any advantage over the traditional trust : supplier relationship?

  1. How quickly have the respective implementations been completed?
  2. How much functionality has been delivered?
  3. How much did it cost and/or how many people were involved?

I think the answers are already known (and largely in the public domain).  Fair minded observers will have already surmised them correctly. However I don't think we will hear any official acknowledgement until after the general election.

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