Well it had to happen eventually…
The National Audit Office has produced its third report on the National Program for IT (NPfIT) and panned it.
I’d figured that something like this was in the offing following reports last week that CSC were not going to have their contract reviewed until after the NAO published the report. After all, the NAO has been saying things like this for some time. I don’t suppose I should be too surprised having read Prof Greenhalgh’s 234 page review from May last year which also suggested that SCRs and HealthSpace weren’t going to be the ringing success that was promised…
And the media outlets have taken little time in jumping on this.
BBC - the schedule is slipping, GP practices are pulling out yet the costs remain broadly the same -
Remind me how does that work again? Who on earth negotiated the contracts that allowed such profligate spending to go unchecked with no comeback on the providers for such significant failures or was the scope of the work so far removed from the reality that those that bid for the contracts underpriced their work…
BMJ – most of the article is hidden behind a paywall – surely an opportunity to stick in the knife would be better seen by all?
Daily Mail - the claws are out again ‘has cost billions without delivering ANY benefits’
Richard Bacon Conservative MP who has followed the program since it was launched said: ‘It is perfectly clear that throwing more money at the problem will not work. ’This turkey will never fly and it is time the Department of Health faced reality and channelled the remaining funds into something useful that will actually benefit patients. The largest civilian I.T. project in the world has failed.’
No benefits at all? – Really Mr Bacon, I suppose NHS net and the N3 network pale into insignificance but the infrastructure investments had to be made… the issue is what to do about the EHR mess we are faced with.
Well perhaps going forward we should be looking at open source solutions that can be tailored by individual hospitals but retain a universal user interface/look and feel like CURIO – That would be ONE HUGE improvement given that junior medical staff change posts every 6 months and have to get used to yet another system from the cowboy that offloaded the last shiny bauble onto the IT commissioners who never ask the opinion of the medical professionals who have to use the systems…
Reuters singles out BT and CSC for particular ire and poor outcomes…
And the medical bloggers:
eHealth Insider does a nice summary timeline of the troubled program too – but the issues with Lorenzo seem to have been a major issue for the delivery – no doubt iSoft financial troubles and being bought out by CSC can’t have made it any easier…
Northern Doc is his usual intemperate and coruscating self goes on to comment that these failures of delivery are not news to frontline staff and that the rollout really didn’t/doesn’t engage with the people best able to spot the pitfalls: “This is apparently the third report by the National Audit Office and what it says is a reflection of what we troops on the ground see and deal with daily. We however knew that. Thank you Auntie for just realizing that.”
OnMedica focuses on the failure to deliver the Summary Care Records:
“The goal that all patients should have an electronic care record will not be achieved, the National Audit Office reported today. It said the rate at which electronic records are being generated “is falling far below expectations”.”
Pulse remains measured:
“The report from the National Audit Office report – published today – is highly critical of the the National Programme for IT (NPfIT) begun by the previous Government and finds that it is running five years late, at a cost of £11.4bn and with no end in sight.”
<rant>
So exactly why do we continue to remove the development from the end users – are we destined to repeat the same mistakes over and over and over again? I for one hope that the NAO report forces the companies that have been contracted to provide equipment and software to wake up. Perhaps they will for once realise that by failing to engage with the end-users, the systems that they develop will not meet the needs of the end-users and therefore the systems’ usefulness will suffer.
</rant>














