InPractice Systems set to sign for the South

Tags: A BT CRS Data Data centre Fujitsu GP Information INPS iS London Solution South Strategic

22 Feb 2005

Fujitsu Alliance, Local Service Provider for the Southern cluster, looks set to finalise contract negotiations with InPractice Systems to supply a version of its Vision 3 system as the 'alternative' GP software solution, E-Health Insider has learned.

A communication from a Strategic Health Authority chief information officer in the South received by EHI last week indicates that the deal for an alternative GP system is now a certainty. The document states: "The initial solution will be a data centre based version of the InPractice Systems Vision 3 product," and adds it will be available for deployment "from May onwards".

"Practices taking this product can be assured that the solution will evolve to provide full 'integrated' CRS functionality over time. The solution is a core product and therefore free of charge to PCTs."

A spokesperson for Fujitsu told EHI that the firm was in the process of "dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's" on the deal. "There are discussions with InPS," confirmed the spokesperson. "A contract hasn't been signed." Nobody at InPS was able to offer EHI comment as of press time.

Another spokesperson for Fujitsu confirmed that an announcement will be made shortly that a GP system based on centrally-hosted 'enterprise' version of InPS's Vision 3 software will be offered to PCTs as the alternative GP system for the South of England. The software will be made freely available to practices across the region under the National Programme for IT.

Fujitsu was unable to confirm whether the system to be deployed would eventually be developed into a full CRS solution. "The whole point of the discussion is to look at the integration," said a representative for Fujitsu.

Fujitsu stressed that a formal announcement will be made soon, but would not be drawn on timescales.

InPractice Systems is also understood to be the alternative primary care systems supplier for the London cluster, where BT is acting as LSP. In both London and the Southern cluster IDX Systems Corporation are meant to supply a brand new primary care system, currently under development, as part of the 'core solution' to be delivered by the LSPs.

The Southern region is the largest in England, covering almost one quarter of England's population and a geographical area from Dover to Land's End and the Isle of Wight to Milton Keynes.

Readers Comments

IT Titanic sails stubbornly on...

22 Feb 05 09:47

As a Vision 3 user, I am very pleased that an alternative IT system may now provide another core solution, thus avoiding having to re-invent the wheel. One wonders now, why precious funding may be being squandered, in an attempt to catch up to the level of IT functionality currently enjoyed by users of these GP management systems. Serious questions now need to be asked about the entire project. Mainly, to whose benefit are these billions being spent? It might well have been cheaper to buy out these companies and modify the systems accordingly.

The more I hear about this U-turn, or that delay, the more the feeling grows that we are heading towards a major disaster in IT terms. Who is currently at the helm of this latter day Titanic? I think he or she should come clean as to why developing an entirely new system from scratch with all it's attendant problems is preferable to drawing up tight system specifications with the existing companies like INPS etc.

Disappointing...

23 Feb 05 10:24

Good news I suppose if you're already a Vision user and want to avoid disruption, but...the selection process for the alternative system seems somewhat opaque. E-health Insider itself doesn't seem sure if InPS also has the London Cluster contract. Neither am I, and I'm in London. This is/was an important decision - in effect the granting of a monoploy. Just HOW did InPS Vision come to be selected? I think we should be told.

Tunnel vision

ROGER@ROYCROFT.ECLIPSE.CO.UK

01 Mar 05 13:25

The Concise Oxford dictionary defines 'Alternative' as "Available or usable instead of another" and, "The freedom or opportunity to choose between two or more things". As I understand it this 'alternative' is yet to be born and certainly has no sign of having been demonstrated to or compared by any organisation with knowledge of the needs of GPs. We hear so much these days about 'freedom of choice' from our politicians and there used to be a time when GP's remembered that they were independent contractors and not part of the slave market, and would tell vendors of vapourware where to go to hibernate instead of greeting such events with a meek and saddening humility. Brothers and sisters, we have been well served by GP software system suppliers for many years past and, if not perfect, they were at least capable and comparable, and could be adjusted to a degree to your personal needs. These Installations were mostly funded by the money and enthusiasm of individual GPs with foresight and chosen to do the job that they wanted, and not specified to (possibly) perform a multiplicity of tasks of use only to central administration. I doubt if many would dive into a pool before checking that it at least contained water, you might even want to test the temperature, and yet we seem to have a profession playing Lemmings and just accepting the offer because it is 'FREE'. My experience of life including 40 years on General Practice is that nothing is 'free' and it prostitutes your judgment to show so little criticality. Many good GP software companies face a closed market if this 'alternative' solution is accepted and the users and their staff, not to mention the patients, could well be in for a very bumpy ride in the years to come. "Look before you buy" is worthy advice which is ignored at considerable peril - even to please politicians.

(The original vanished from the screen - it may have been sent already or maybe lost in cyberspace. It's a good thing I'm not paranoid)

what are our leaders doing about this monopoly?

02 Mar 05 15:28

Surely this cant be happening?!! LSP's - some of whom have been involved in notorious public sector IT failures- for example fujitsu and the child support agency- are choosing a single 'alternative' (to what!) provider for an area - without anyone else being involved in the choice- with no reference to what most practices are already using- with no defined criteria or independent scrutiny. This software will be centrally financed, but other GP systems will have to be financed by PCT's themselves. How could anyone think this is a good idea? In particular - how have the BMA accepted it? Could there possibly be a cosy relationship between the GPC, the RCGP, and NPfIT. Do any of our leaders work for both? Unfortunately - the answer is YES.