Tag Archives: npfit

MP responds to our campaign on £265m extra spend on Siemens passport IT contract

Posted on 27/07/2011 | 1 comment

By Tony Collins

Richard Bacon, a Conservative MP on the Public Accounts Committee, has written to the head of the National Audit Office to ask that he consider an inquiry into £265m of extra payments to Siemens on a passport IT contract.

It comes after the Home Office declined to explain why a contract with Siemens that was expected to cost £80m to £100m ended up costing £265m.

On Monday this week Home Office spokesman Andrew Bell politely declined to answer any of Campaign4Change’s questions on the Siemens contract.

As a result we forwarded to Bacon emails of our questions to the Home Office and its answers.    

Now Bacon has written to Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, drawing his attention to our email exchange with the Home Office.

Says Bacon in his note to Morse:

“I wondered if the NAO might consider looking at the Siemens contract for the IT infrastructure for the passport service?  The Home Office appears to see relatively little need to justify the fact that an £80-100 million contract with Siemens actually cost £365 million.”

Bacon also pointed out to Morse that CSC has replaced Siemens on the passport IT contract. CSC is a main supplier on the NHS National Programme for IT, NPfIT.  In a report due to be published shortly by the Public Accounts Committee, CSC’s work on the NPfIT is likely to be heavily criticised.

Unless the NAO investigates the passport contracts Parliament will have no certain way of knowing whether the CSC passport IT contract, like the Siemens deal, is deviating from the original expected costs, scope or timetable.

Officials are keeping Gateway reviews secret – though these could give MPs an insight into progress of the CSC passport contract.  

My questions to the Home Office, and its reply, are here.

1 Comment

Posted in Campaign4Change, managing change, npfit, public sector, public services, supplier relationships, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Handling change: Could Tesco Bank learn from First Direct – and Govt?

Posted on 26/07/2011 | Leave a comment

By Tony Collins

Tesco Bank has learned the hard way what some government and NHS users have discovered: that the first rule of managing big IT-enabled change is to invest in lots of extra staff to cope with the unexpected.

A spokesman for Tesco Bank said yesterday that its services are back to normal. Customers can access their accounts and the help-desk is answering calls normally. He was not aware of any “issues”.

Not all Tesco Bank’s  customers agree that the service is fully operational.  Some are having problems closing their accounts and when they succeed they are being sent hand-written cheques, which is, perhaps, an archaic practice for an on-line bank. Was this part of the original design?

Martin Bryant who has had a Tesco account since 1997 emailed Campaign4Change to say he was having problems closing his account.

“I’m still waiting for my money, and spend an hour a day on the phone to Tesco’s unbelievably poor helpline.”

Eventually he persuaded Tesco Bank to close his account.

Said Bryant: “The new computer system does not allow me to make transfers to my non-Tesco bank account … The help-desk staff  do not know what they are doing: promises to ring back are not kept, and it took me several hours over three days to close my accounts and get my money transferred to my First Direct account.

“I only succeeded because I rang so often I finally encountered the only member of staff capable of actually doing something –  so thank you Alison.” He said Tesco should “stick to selling cabbages”.

Bryant is among those left unhappy by Tesco Bank’s troubled transfer of about 900,000 accounts from Royal Bank of Scotland systems to its own. These are some of the comments in the past few days on Martin Lewis’ MoneySavingExpert.com website:

“I still don’t have the [new] PIN, and having tried to call Tesco Bank again tonight (three times) i have not managed to speak to anyone as the lines are still too busy. I can’t believe Tesco Bank have the cheek to claim that the issue is somehow resolved. I hope the regulator takes a very good look at Tesco Banks’ conduct …”

**

“One month on and there are still problems. I have been waiting nine days for my temporary PIN. I want to move my money but am unable to do so. No interest from Tesco. You just have to wait 10 working days before we will do anything about it. That’s two weeks with no access to my money… All I want is my money out!”

**

“Still locked out as well – what a shambolic mess. Apparently the temporary PINS that were promised to be sent out on 8th and 9th July were not sent out. The follow-up temporary PIN allegedly sent out 14th July still has not arrived.

They say to allow up to five working days, so tomorrow is my deadline before account closure. Clearly from the conversation today they still have a great many very angry customers, unable to access their accounts after over four weeks.”

**

“I hope the shambles is over for me? After 2 weeks of being messed about I gave up on Tesco. No PIN, no letters, no clue.  Asked to close the account and was transferred through to some one who was clearly becoming a expert at this.

“After security and a call back they will send a cheque……won’t transfer it back to me electronically…mind you with their systems can’t blame them for not taking the risk?

I await the post with baited breath. Still one lesson learnt…Don’t bank with Tesco.”

**

Learning from First Direct – and central government

First Direct is regarded in customer satisfaction surveys as the bank customers would most recommend.

In 2011, as in other years, the UK Customer Service Index, which surveyed 26,000 people, put First Direct top of the UK banks.

Like Tesco Bank, First Direct unwittingly locked customers out of their accounts when implementing large-scale change. It happened in 2007.

First Direct got away with the problems without damage to its reputation largely, it seems, because it had enough extra service desk staff talking through with thousands of callers the steps they needed to take to update their browser. Some browser versions were incompatible with First Direct’s upgraded system.

In contrast Tesco Bank was caught short and customers had to wait an hour or more before getting through on the helpline – or giving up. It also appears that when people did get through, some of the extra staff Tesco Bank belatedly drafted in did not have access to customer accounts.

NHS Trusts and the NPfIT local service providers BT and CSC have learned the hard way that large-scale IT implementations require extra staff at go-live, and several weeks after, to cope with system and software bugs, work-rounds and end-users not understanding new ways of working.

It’s a trap one would have thought Tesco Bank would have avoided.  You can’t cut staff before large-scale IT-enabled change – and perhaps not soon afterwards either.

Links:

Lessons from an IT crisis – Tesco Bank.

Waitrose apologises to website customers.

Leave a comment

Posted in Campaign4Change, managing change, NHS, npfit, Uncategorized

Tagged ,

Did officials tell MPs the whole truth on NPfIT payments to CSC?

Posted on 15/07/2011 | 2 comments

By Tony Collins

Conservative MP Richard Bacon wrote to the NHS Chief Executive Sir David Nicholson yesterday warning that a failure to disclose information to the Public Accounts Committee was a “very serious matter”.

Bacon, a long-standing member of the Public Accounts Committee, wrote to Nicholson about advance payments to CSC under the NHS National Programme for IT.

The MP is concerned that the Department of Health did not mention a £200m advance payment to CSC at a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee on the NPfIT detailed care records systems on 23 May 2011; and the payment wasn’t mentioned in the Department’s subsequent memo to the committee.

Said Bacon in his letter:

“I understand that the advance payment of £200m to CSC was made in April 2011 but the Department of Health’s memo of 7 June 2011 doesn’t mention it. 

“The failure to disclose to the PAC an advance payment of £200m is a very serious matter.  The fact that the payment appears to have happened after 31 March 2011 is scarcely the point.

“What is going on? … 

CSC declared the £200m advance payment in regulatory announcement

CSC has told regulatory authorities in the US that on 1 April 2011, pursuant to the NPfIT contract, the “NHS made an advance payment to the Company of £200 million ($320 million) related to the forecasted charges expected by the Company during fiscal year 2012”.

The payment was reported by E-health Insider last month.

It appears that the Department decided to give the committee details of advance payments to CSC up until 31 March 2011. The undisclosed £200m payment to CSC was made the next day, 1 April.

As the Department of Health wrote to the committee on 7 June there is no clear reason for its choice of 31 March as the cut-off date for informing MPs of advance payments to CSC.

It would not be the first time the Department has withheld the latest information on the NPfIT from what it regards as outsiders, such as Parliament and the media.

When the National Audit Office was investigating the NPfIT several years ago it was not told of the latest Ipsos MORI survey on NHS perceptions of the National Programme.

The Department instead gave the NAO an older and more positive Ipsos MORI survey. The NAO confirmed to me it had not seen the latest survey [which had some negative findings on the NPfIT].  

Today some in the Cabinet Office are exasperated at the disdain with which some officials at the Department of Health – not all – treat outside supervisory organisations such as the NAO, the Public Accounts Committee and the Cabinet Office.

It appears that some in the Department regard these organisations as necessary by-products of democracy that must be tolerated but not encouraged.

Comment:

Major change is unlikely to happen in Whitehall or at least within the Department of Health and NHS Connecting for Health if officials are allowed, with ease, to dismiss their scrutineers with a wave of their hand.

The culture of allowing the DH to withhold the truth about the NPfIT needs tackling. All credit to Bacon and the Cabinet Office for trying to do just that. It’s likely that Katie Davis, the interim health CIO, will also seek to make the DH less introspective and defensive, at least in terms of the NPfIT and health informatics generally.   

**

Bacon’s letter to Sir David Nicholson

This is Bacon’s letter dated 14 July2011 to Nicholson, copied to the head of the National Audit Office Amyas Morse, the chair of the Public Accounts Committee Margaret Hodge, and the Cabinet Office. 

Dear Sir David

NATIONAL PROGRAMME FOR IT IN THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

I do not seem to have received a reply to my email of 27 June below.

Making advance payments of any kind at all is wholly at variance with the Department of Health’s long-stated boast that the NPfIT contracts “only pay for delivery”, but let us leave aside this basic point for the moment.

I understand that the advance payment of £200 million to CSC was made in April 2011 but the Department of Health’s memo of 7 June 2011 doesn’t mention it.  The failure to disclose to the PAC an advanced payment of £200 million is a very serious matter.  The fact that the payment appears to have happened after 31 March 2011 is scarcely the point.

What is going on?  Please reply to my email below with its various questions without further delay.

Yours sincerely

Richard Bacon MP for South Norfolk, Member of the Public Accounts Committee

Bacon’s earlier letter to Nicholson, dated 27 June 2011

Dear Sir David

NATIONAL PROGRAMME FOR IT IN THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

I am writing following the hearing of the Public Accounts Committee on Monday 23 May 2011, to follow up on two important issues that were raised during your evidence:

1.       ADVANCE PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS

In your supplementary memorandum to the PAC following the hearing you gave a total of advance payments made up to 31 March 2011, in respect of all contracts over the whole period of the Programme, of £2,532m of which suppliers have retained £1,328m. You also identified a further £119 million of advance payments to be earned or refunded.  Since the memorandum was received by the PAC, it has been reported that the NHS made an advance payment of £200 million to CSC in April 2011. http://www.ehi.co.uk/news/acute-care/6971/nhs-made-£200m-april-advance-to-csc

I should be most grateful if you would let me know the answers to the following questions:

1.       Is this report accurate?

2.       Why was this payment was not reported to the PAC, either during the hearing or in the subsequent memorandum?

3.       What was the justification for this payment and what value does it represent to the NHS?

4.       What will happen in respect of this payment if a new memorandum of understanding is not in fact signed with CSC?

5.       I would also be grateful if you would comment on the CSC filing with the US Security and Exchange Commission, which states that in the opinion of the company, if the NHS were to terminate the current contract “for convenience” it would owe fees totalling less than the $1 billion asset value CSC now has on its books for the contract.   How is this consistent with the claim at the PAC  hearing by Ms Connelly that the cost of terminating the CSC deal could “potentially leave us exposed to a higher cost than if we completed as it stands today”?

2. THE COST OF DEPLOYING CERNER MILLENNIUM AT NORTH BRISTOL

Second, I would be grateful if you could comment on the cost of deploying Cerner Millennium at North Bristol, reported in your memorandum as £21 million, including service for 56 months, and on the current expected go-live date.  Specifically:

6.       Can you explain why the delivery date agreed with BT at the contract “reset” was 4th June 2011?

7.       Why it was then revised to 2nd July 2011?

8.       And why it now appears that there is no agreed delivery date at all?

9.       Can you also give your best comparison of the cost of deploying the Cerner Millennium system at North Bristol, with the cost to University Hospitals Bristol of deploying the System C Healthcare Medway system outside the National Programme?  It would appear from media reports that this latter contract includes deployment of functionality including PAS, Accident and Emergency, maternity, theatres, clinical data collection, and a data warehouse and reporting system, as well as integration of third party and current Trust applications.  According to the National Audit Office, the average cost for each new site under the BT South contract is £28.3 million, but the cost of the Medway system to UHB has been reported as £8.2 million over seven years. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/healthcare-network/2011/may/19/university-hospitals-bristol-foundation-trust-awards-e-patient-contract)   What is the justification for this apparent difference?

10.   As the Senior Responsible Owner for the National Programme, can you give your explicit undertaking that the North Bristol contract represents value for money for taxpayers?

I look forward to receiving your reply.

With many thanks

Yours sincerely

Richard Bacon

2 Comments

Posted in Campaign4Change, improving communications, NHS, npfit, outsourcing, public sector, public services, supplier relationships, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , ,

What the FireControl disaster and NPfIT have in common

Posted on 01/07/2011 | 1 comment

By Tony Collins

From today’s National Audit Office report on FireControl project which wasted at least £469m:

“FiReControl was flawed from the outset because it did not have the support of the majority of those essential to its success – its users”

Were the Fire and Rescue Service’s FireControl project and the National Programme for IT in the NHS launched to discover all that can go wrong with a large IT-based project?

One could be forgiven for thinking so. The two projects were conceived in the early part of the new millennium as national, centralised schemes which, in the main, did not have any support from the people who would be using them.

The schemes were launched by civil servants and ministers with good intentions and little or no experience in the many IT-related project disasters that went before.

The projects that had failed since the late 1970s and early 1980s went wrong for similar reasons. As early as 1984 the Public Accounts Committee met to question civil servants on the common factors in a succession of “administrative computing” failures.

Since then every department has come to its IT-based projects and programmes with little understanding – and very little interest – in the lessons from history; and it’s said that those who don’t learn from history are destined to repeat past mistakes.

The FireControl system, which is the subject of an NAO report today, and the NPfIT, had something striking in common: the fact that the system users were the ones with the control of money and decisions on how they spent it – and they did not want technology imposed on them by civil servants in London. That was clear from the start. But it did not stop either the NPfIT or FireControl going ahead.

Indeed a Gateway Review by the Office of Government Commerce in April 2004, after the FireControl project had been approved, found that the “extraordinarily fast pace” of the project was introducing new risks to its delivery, and was escalating the risks already identified. The review concluded that the project was in poor condition overall and at significant risk of failing to deliver.

That review was, at the time, as with similar reviews on the NPfIT, kept secret, so those outside the project, including MPs and the media, were unable to challenge the projects with a credibility that could have influenced decisions on the future of the schemes.

New gateway reviews are still kept secret today, despite the coalition’s promise of openness and transparency.

The good thing about the FireControl project and the NPfIT is that the Cabinet Office has taken control. A Cabinet Office Major Projects Review Group in in July 2010 concluded that negotiations should begin to terminate the FireControl contract – and indeed a settlement with the supplier EADS was reached successfully and amicably in December 2010. The Cabinet Office’s Major Projects Authority is now  reviewing the future of CSC’s £2.9bn worth of NPfIT contracts.

The bad thing is that the FireControl scheme has wasted at least £469m, according to today’s report of the National Audit Office. The NPfIT may have lost a great deal more.

NAO’s conclusion on FireControl

This was the NAO’s conclusion on the FireControl project. Much the same could be said of the NPfIT:

“This is an example of bad value for money. FiReControl will have wasted a minimum of £469m, through its failure to provide any enhancement to the capacity of the control centres of Fire and Rescue Services after seven years.

“At root, this outcome has been reached because the Department, without sufficient mandatory powers, decided to try to centrally impose a national control system on unwilling locally accountable bodies, which prize their distinctiveness from each other and their freedom to choose their own equipment.

“At the same time, it tried to rush through key elements of project initiation and ended up with an inadequate IT contract, under-appreciating its complexity and risk, and then mismanaged problems with the IT contractor’s performance and delivery.”

 Links:

FireControl project a comprehensive failure.

The failure of the FireControl project – NAO report.

1 Comment

Posted in legal disputes, NHS, npfit, public sector, public services, supplier relationships, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

NHS IT supplier “corrects” Health CIO’s statements

Posted on 30/06/2011 | 3 comments

An IT supplier to the NHS has written to MPs to “correct” statements made by Health CIO Christine Connelly.

The implications of the supplier’s corrections are that Conservative MP Richard Bacon might have been right all along:  that the Department of Health may be paying BT as much as £200m more than necessary to install the “RiO” patient record system at 25 trusts in the south of England.

The corrections by CSE Healthcare Systems – supplier of RiO – call into question some of the Department of Health’s justifications for the high costs of NPfIT versions of RiO.

RiO is an electronic patient record system that is supplied to mental health trusts and community service organisations. Trusts can buy directly from CSE Healthcare or via its partner BT Global Services which is the local service provider to London under the National Programme for IT.

Through the NPfIT, BT is installing RiO at 25 trusts in the south of England under a £224.3m NPfIT deal – £8.9m per site, compared with £500,000 to £1.5m per site if supplied to the NHS directly by CSE outside of the national programme.

At a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee on 23 May 2011, Conservative MP Richard Bacon asked Connelly to explain why RiO costs so much more when it is supplied by BT.

Connelly told the Committee that the Department of Health had investigated the RiO costs at Bradford District Care Trust, which is a mental health trust.

Bradford bought RiO outside the NPfIT, using the ASCC framework contract, which enables trusts to buy systems directly from suppliers without going through NPfIT local service providers.

The total cost of RiO at Bradford was £1.3m, which Connelly said was for a 59‑month contract.

She told MPs:

“So the comparison: in terms of the services that we provide, there are a whole set of services that are not within that £1.3m that are inside the Local Service Provider contract.

“Earlier somebody said, ‘Well, doesn’t everybody have disaster recovery.’  Well, actually, no, and at this Trust only 25% availability is provided in their local arrangements, which are not included in these costs.

“So we have a cost in terms of the BT LSP in the South for the same period, which includes the hardware, the support, the disaster recovery at 100%, the Spine connectivity, all of which are not supplied inside this Bradford system.

“If we looked at those costs through BT’s cost profile, it would be valued at £2.5m.”

Bacon pointed out that £2.5m was still much less than £8.9m being charged by BT. He wanted the difference explained.

Connelly said:

“So first there is the period. So we need to take a look at the average period that you would expect to be there, because we pay a one‑off deployment charge and then we pay a monthly charge.  So in terms of the figure that you quote, it is generally for about a four-year period, and the figure we quote is generally for about a six-year period, sometimes a little more.  I think what we get is 24/7 support.

“We get full disaster recovery.  I think it is fine to say, “Oh, anybody has that.”  The cost of full disaster recovery is significant, when you look at the costs that BT have; we invited an external auditor to go look at the cost build-up, and they have audited these costs.  We looked at BT’s profit margin, and they have taken a significant reduction in their profit margin between the original contract and the contract that we have today…”

To which Bacon replied:  “But it is not the taxpayer’s fault if BT has unbelievably high costs.”

Bacon said that one reason the costs are so high is that CSE cannot talk directly to NHS trusts and must go through BT.  “That is the problem with this structure,” said Bacon. “It is like having you over here, and the customer over there, and an enormous thicket, a forest of lawyers, in between.”

Connelly replied that a change to the programme means that suppliers of RiO are now on site “talking to Trusts themselves”.  In London and the South, for RiO, a new user group brings together all the Trusts. Cerner, the supplier of NPfIT patient administration systems in London and the south of England, also deals directly with trusts rather than through BT, said Connelly.

Taking issue with Connelly’s comments about Bradford, this was CSE’s written statement to the Public Accounts Committee:

“During the evidence presented by Ms Christine Connelly, one of our contracts for RiO,  Bradford Mental Health Trust was referenced.

“Ms Connelly’s statement was that Bradford is receiving a lower standard of service than provided by BT in London and hence the lower price charged by CSE Healthcare Systems to Bradford.

“CSE Healthcare Systems wishes to correct the evidence given.

• Ms Connelly stated that the service is NOT 24*7 hours – the service is a 24*7 service.

• Ms Connelly stated that Disaster Recovery (DR) was NOT included in the service – a DR service is included.

• There was no mention of Facilities Management – we provide remote Facilities Management

• The service contract is for five years – not four years as stated.

• Ms Connelly implied that the system only had 25% availability – our records demonstrate that this is not true; the system is architected to achieve an availability of over 99%.”

**

Another NHS IT supplier Maracis has provided evidence that RiO costs several times more under the NPfIT than outside the programme, for similar levels of service, disaster recovery, availability and support periods.

On its website CSE Healthcare says its system is compliant with the NPfIT data “spine” and supports established standards for interoperability such as HL7 and XML.

The Public Accounts Committee is finalising a report on the NPfIT detailed care record systems. Its findings will be based on its questioning of Connelly and other witnesses, written evidence from CSE and others, and a report of the National Audit Office in May.

Connelly, who is Director General of Informatics, has announced she is leaving at the end of this month, after three years. She is being replaced in the interim by Katie Davis, who is from the Cabinet Office.

3 Comments

Posted in Campaign4Change, NHS, npfit, outsourcing, public sector, public services, supplier relationships, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , ,

MP questions why IT costs at two nearby hospital trusts are vastly different for similar systems

Posted on 28/06/2011 | 4 comments

By Tony Collins

A Conservative MP has asked the NHS Chief Executive Sir David Nicholson to explain why an NHS trust is deploying a centrally-chosen Cerner patient record system at more than twice the cost of a similar but non-NPfIT system at a nearby Foundation trust.

University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust is deploying the Medway system from System C  (now owned by McKesson] at a reported cost of £8.2m over seven years. The acute trust is one of the largest in the country.

With support for less than five years, the nearby North Bristol NHS trust is taking the Cerner Millennium patient record system under the NPfIT at a cost of £21m from BT – and the go-live date in June has slipped to July.

Now Richard Bacon, a member of the Public Accounts Committee, has written to Sir David Nicholson asking for an explanation of why the two trusts are paying vastly different amounts for systems that do similar things. Bacon has also asked Nicholson whether he believes the higher sum is value for money.

The average cost of BT Cerner go-lives under  the NPfIT is £28.3m according to the National Audit Office.

Bacon’s letter is part of evidence which suggests that continuing NPfIT contracts is costing hundreds of millions of pounds more than necessary.

The coalition government, despite its plan to cut public sector IT costs, may spend a further £3bn to 4.bn with the NPfIT’s two major suppliers, BT and CSC, though the Cabinet Office’s Major Projects Authority is reviewing CSC’s £2.9bn worth of contracts.

Bacon’s letter also questions advance payments to CSC, and whether a recent hearing of the Public Accounts Committee was told the full truth.

An unwavering defender of the NPfIT, Nicholson is likely to defend the cost of the North Bristol implementation, and the advance payments to CSC. On costs, he will argue that North Bristol’s systems have better resilience than at non-NPfIT sites.

If that were true – and there is no evidence it is – the extra costs of having a “hot”, or real-time standby data centre, may not justify a doubling of a rival’s prices. 

This is Bacon’s letter to Sir David Nicholson:

Chief Executive, National Health Service, Department of Health, Richmond House, London SW1A 2NS

27 June 2011

Dear Sir David

NATIONAL PROGRAMME FOR IT IN THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

I am writing following the hearing of the Public Accounts Committee on Monday 23 May 2011, to follow up on two important issues that were raised during your evidence:

ADVANCE PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS

In your supplementary memorandum to the PAC following the hearing you gave a total of advance payments made up to 31 March 2011, in respect of all contracts over the whole period of the Programme, of £2,532m of which suppliers have retained £1,328m. You also identified a further £119 million of advance payments to be earned or refunded.  Since the memorandum was received by the PAC, it has been reported that the NHS made an advance payment of £200 million to CSC in April 2011.

I should be most grateful if you would let me know the answers to the following questions:

Is this report accurate?

Why was this payment was not reported to the PAC, either during the hearing or in the subsequent memorandum?

What was the justification for this payment and what value does it represent to the NHS?

What will happen in respect of this payment if a new memorandum of understanding is not in fact signed with CSC?

I would also be grateful if you would comment on the CSC filing with the US Security and Exchange Commission, which states that in the opinion of the company, if the NHS were to terminate the current contract “for convenience” it would owe fees totalling less than the $1 billion asset value CSC now has on its books for the contract.  

How is this consistent with the claim at the PAC  hearing by Ms Connelly that the cost of terminating the CSC deal could “potentially leave us exposed to a higher cost than if we completed as it stands today”?

2. THE COST OF DEPLOYING CERNER MILLENNIUM AT NORTH BRISTOL

Second, I would be grateful if you could comment on the cost of deploying Cerner Millennium at North Bristol, reported in your memorandum as £21 million, including service for 56 months, and on the current expected go-live date.  Specifically:

Can you explain why the delivery date agreed with BT at the contract “reset” was 4th June 2011?

Why it was then revised to 2nd July 2011?

And why it now appears that there is no agreed delivery date at all?

Can you also give your best comparison of the cost of deploying the Cerner Millennium system at North Bristol, with the cost to University Hospitals Bristol of deploying the System C Healthcare Medway system outside the National Programme?  It would appear from media reports that this latter contract includes deployment of functionality including PAS, Accident and Emergency, maternity, theatres, clinical data collection, and a data warehouse and reporting system, as well as integration of third party and current Trust applications.  According to the National Audit Office, the average cost for each new site under the BT South contract is £28.3 million, but the cost of the Medway system to UHB has been reported as £8.2 million over seven years. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/healthcare-network/2011/may/19/university-hospitals-bristol-foundation-trust-awards-e-patient-contract)   What is the justification for this apparent difference?

As the Senior Responsible Owner for the National Programme, can you give your explicit undertaking that the North Bristol contract represents value for money for taxpayers?

I look forward to receiving your reply.

With many thanks

Yours sincerely

Richard Bacon

MP for South Norfolk, Member of the Public Accounts Committee

4 Comments

Posted in Campaign4Change, NHS, npfit, outsourcing, public sector, public services, supplier relationships

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

What are the key challenges facing the next NHS CIO?

Posted on 24/06/2011 | Leave a comment

By David Bicknell

What’s on the ‘must-tackle’ list of the next NHS CIO to replace Christine Connelly? Good piece from Kathleen Hall today in Computer Weekly discussing five key challenges that must be faced.

Leave a comment

Posted in NHS, npfit

Tagged , ,

Katie Davis for new Health CIO?

Posted on 23/06/2011 | 2 comments

The Cabinet Office’s Katie Davis, who takes over next month, on an interim basis, from Health CIO Christine Connelly,  is ex-Accenture.

But that shouldn’t be held against her.  Accenture left the NPfIT in 2006 with its reputation untarnished.

A profile of Davis appeared in The Telegraph in 2007. The newspaper described her as a yank at the court of King Tony, set on excellence in IT.

Though it could be assumed that Davis has a “big company” approach, and so would welcome the continued dominance of the NPfIT, she told The Telegraph she found her time at Accenture highly satisfying but after a while she stopped having fun.

“The overheads of working for a huge corporation had slightly impaired my ability to deliver. By overheads, I mean travel and the demands of process. My needs and those of the corporation did not overlap so well.”

She also said she worked in the NHS.

“I had worked with the NHS before, and was seconded to work with some of the cleverest and most committed people I’d ever been in a working environment with. It opened my eyes to the challenges and the excitement of working in the public sector.”

Davis has the advantage of having started her career as an engineer (electrical). Which makes it sound as if she’s more practical and realistic than visionary and idealistic. She may make an excellent (permanent) Health CIO.

Telegraph profile of Katie Davis.

2 Comments

Posted in Campaign4Change, NHS, npfit, public sector, public services

Tagged , , , , , ,

Who’ll support the NPfIT now?

Posted on 23/06/2011 | 5 comments

By Tony Collins

The departure of Christine Connelly as health CIO at the end of this month will leave the NPfIT’s main civil service supporter, Sir David Nicholson, Chief Executive of the NHS and Senior Responsible Owner of the NHS IT scheme,  more isolated.

That Nicholson is a supporter of the continuance of the NPfIT is not in doubt. He spoke about the NHS IT scheme last month in terms of life and death. At a hearing of the public accounts committee on 23 May 2011, Nicholson said:

“We spent about 20% of that resource [the £11.4bn projected total spend on the NPfIT] on the acute sector. The other 80% is providing services that literally mean life and death to patients today, and have done for the last period.

“So the Spine, and all those things, provides really, really important services for our patients. If you are going to talk about the totality of the [NPfIT] system … you have to accept that 80% of that programme has been delivered.”

But without Christine Connelly, who put detailed arguments in favour of continuing with iSoft’s Lorenzo, and who was solidly behind the costly implementations of Cerner by BT, Nicholson may not have the civil service backup he needs to promote the continuance of the NPfIT.

The Cabinet Office’s Major Projects Authority, under the directorship of the independently-minded David Pitchford,  is now reviewing CSC’s £2.9bn worth of NPfIT contracts. It is known that the Authority regards the new proposals worked out between CSC and the Department of Health as poor value for money, even with CSC’s willingness to reduce the value of its contracts by £764m, to about £2.1bn.

That promised reduction comes at a cost. A leaked Cabinet office memo said that the CSC’s proposals would double the cost of each Lorenzo deployment.

The easiest thing for Nicholson and the Department of Health would be for the Major Projects Authority to approve the deal worked out between CSC and the Department of Health, and simply sign a new Memorandum of Understanding which would be, in part, legally binding.

Strong grounds for ending CSC’s NPfIT contracts

The more difficult but more practical alternative is for the Cabinet Office to require the Department of Health to end CSC’s NPfIT contracts, which would leave the NHS more able to decide its own IT-based future.

Indeed the signs are in some trusts that officials are not unhappy about Connelly’s departure in that they perceive it may weaken the centre’s control over NHS IT.

Legally it appears that an end to CSC’s contract would be feasible. The Department of Health has accused CSC of a breach of contract because of its failure to achieve a key milestone; the Department has also notified CSC of “various alleged events of default under the contract” which are “related to  delays and other alleged operational issues”. The Department is considering its position on termination of all or parts of the contract.

But the Department has not taken its claims to arbitration; its allegations are only a formal legal manoeuvre at the moment.

CSC accuses NHS of failures and breaches of contract

CSC has reacted by accusing the NHS of a breach of contract. The company’s formal legal position is that it has cured or is preparing to cure the faults that led to the alleged breach; it says that failures and breaches of contract on the part of NHS have caused delays and issues.

The DH could end CSC’s contract for reasons of convenience which could trigger a request from CSC for a large sum in compensation. But the Department could give strong legal reasons for not paying. Although CSC could pursue its claim for compensation, it may be on soft ground because of its failures. Also, CSC, if it pursues any legal action, could jeopardise its other work for government: some of its other major contracts with the UK government are with the Identity and Passport Service, which is part of the Home Office.

The Coalition is now supervising its major suppliers, including CSC, in the round, which is reason enough for CSC to do all it can to maintain a good relationship with the Cabinet Office.

CSC would support NHS trusts even if its contracts ended

The  Department of Health is concerned that if it ends the NPfIT contracts with CSC, the supplier may leave unsupported many trusts that have CSC’s iSoft software installed. That is highly unlikely, however, because CSC has a $1.03bn investment in the NPfIT contracts according to the regulatory reports to US authorities.

In the NHS CSC has a large customer base. Through its acquisition of iSoft, CSC will want to capitalise on its investment in iSoft’s Lorenzo software by selling it across the globe. That’s its stated plan. So CSC’s continued support for NHS trusts that have installed iSoft software is not in doubt.

What NHS Trusts want

The best outcome of the negotiations with CSC, for NHS trusts that have installed iSoft software, is that they have the:

-choice to continue with CSC if the price is right

– buy support elsewhere, or

– choose a different product.

Will CSC’s NPfIT contracts end by mutual agreement? – it’s possible

The question is: does the Cabinet Office have the courage to end CSC’s contract, freeing up billions of pounds that would otherwise have been spent on the NPfIT without a commensurate return for taxpayers, the NHS or patients?

It seems  so, even if it means paying a relatively painless sum to CSC as compensation for termination.

Leaked memo reveals CSC’s plans.

A sign that coalition reforms will change behaviour of major suppliers.

Health CIO resigns – Cabinet Office executive steps in.

Example of a trust that’s succeeding without the NPfIT – Trafford General Hospital.

Connelly at odds with PM over NPfIT value for money?

NHS CIO in dramatic resignation.

5 Comments

Posted in NHS, npfit, outsourcing, public sector, public services, supplier relationships, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A thank you to IM&T and medical staff at Trafford General Hospital

Posted on 15/06/2011 | Leave a comment

By Tony Collins

My thanks to the IM&T and medical teams at Manchester-based Trafford General Hospital who made my visit last week so useful.

A special thanks to IM&T manager Steve Parsons and his assistants Laura Slatcher and Karen Ambrose for their patient and clear explanations. I am also grateful to Peter Large,  Director of Planning, Performance & Service Improvement; Simon Musgrave, Medical Director;  Julie Treadgold, Matron, and their teams.

It was enlightening to see how IT at Trafford General Hospital is changing the working lives of doctors and nurses – and making a difference for patients.

The technology and business media, when reporting on IT in the NHS, often mention the National Programme for IT – NPfIT –  and the tens of millions of patients who have GP-held electronic records, or who have received packs of marketing material on the Summary Care Records scheme. Thus the media coverage of NHS IT is often of the abstract and hazy world of contract negotiations and huge sums spent with major IT companies.

My visit to Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust was a reminder of how much some IM&T managers are achieving on small budgets, outside of central, politically-driven IT-led programmes.

At Trafford I saw what buy-in among doctors and nurses means in practice, such as the timely completion of electronic forms that make it easy to see, on large touch screens located in a room close to each ward, when a patient’s next medical check is due, when a VTE (Venous thromboembolism) check is overdue, when an A&E patient has been waiting too long to be seen or treated, and the reasons for the breaches.

So much essential information is available from the ward touch screens – such as graphs showing whether, say, medication is having the desired effect, over hours or days,  on a patient’s neutrophil blood cells; and it’s easy to see whether a patient has yet to have an x-ray reviewed by a specialist. Indeed a doctor with the relevant smartcard authorisation can call up their patients’ x-rays on the ward’s touch-screen.

Behind all these screens is the patient’s electronic record that includes archived, scanned notes, diagrams and charts. If the local GP has authorised it – and so far about half in Trafford’s catchment area have – A&E department hospital doctors will soon be able to access the GP-held patient record also.

Trafford’s hospital-wide technology is designed to be integrated with departmental systems by the in-house team. It is delivered by suppliers whose contracts are firmly under the control of the local Trust.  It’s technology outside of the NPfIT – and it works.

So while officials in Whitehall have spent years trying to make an overly ambitious NPfIT deliver, some trusts, Trafford among them, have been giving measurable and visible technological support to clinicians who have welcomed the changes because they have seen improvements in the safety monitoring and timely treatment of their patients.

We plan to report further on the improvements at Trafford and at other hospitals.

Leave a comment

Posted in Campaign4Change, innovation, NHS, npfit, public services, supplier relationships

Tagged , , , ,