NHS pulls plug on £11bn computer system.
03 August 2011, 01:51 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NHS pulls plug on £11bn computer system.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...m-2330906.html
£2.7 billion spunked on the developement so far and NOTHING to show for it.
Another Labour procurement disaster along with projects such as the Chinook helicopters, Nimrod etc etc, not to mention the billions wasted on Quangos, consultants of every form. Add the Carrier project too which was in a right state when the Tories took over.
£2.7 billion spunked on the developement so far and NOTHING to show for it.
Another Labour procurement disaster along with projects such as the Chinook helicopters, Nimrod etc etc, not to mention the billions wasted on Quangos, consultants of every form. Add the Carrier project too which was in a right state when the Tories took over.
Last edited by tony de wonderful; 03 August 2011 at 02:02 PM.
03 August 2011, 02:02 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was inevitable. The money wasted on this is scandalous.
Many many so called "experts" have made fortunes selling this dead duck to the NHS.
The doctors didn't want it, the consultants didn't want it, the nurses didn't want it. How clear a message did they need before squandering untold amounts on an ill-conceived, unworkable system. Grrr.
Many many so called "experts" have made fortunes selling this dead duck to the NHS.
The doctors didn't want it, the consultants didn't want it, the nurses didn't want it. How clear a message did they need before squandering untold amounts on an ill-conceived, unworkable system. Grrr.
03 August 2011, 02:06 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was inevitable. The money wasted on this is scandalous.
Many many so called "experts" have made fortunes selling this dead duck to the NHS.
The doctors didn't want it, the consultants didn't want it, the nurses didn't want it. How clear a message did they need before squandering untold amounts on an ill-conceived, unworkable system. Grrr.
Many many so called "experts" have made fortunes selling this dead duck to the NHS.
The doctors didn't want it, the consultants didn't want it, the nurses didn't want it. How clear a message did they need before squandering untold amounts on an ill-conceived, unworkable system. Grrr.
Trending Topics
03 August 2011, 03:26 PM
#10
To the lay-person (and even to someone working in the NHS), its difficult to understand just why this is so complicated and expensive?
Isnt it just one big database that requires updating and sharing by authorised users? I'm not sure why clinical staff dont want it, as the beneifts of it are clear (apart from the cost obviously).
The NHS has a single email system (admittedly not used by all of the bodies) that works fine 99.5% of the time and is accessible from any internet enabled device, so how much more complicated is it than that?
Isnt it just one big database that requires updating and sharing by authorised users? I'm not sure why clinical staff dont want it, as the beneifts of it are clear (apart from the cost obviously).
The NHS has a single email system (admittedly not used by all of the bodies) that works fine 99.5% of the time and is accessible from any internet enabled device, so how much more complicated is it than that?
03 August 2011, 04:40 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How does this cost billions?
Realistically, i'm sure it could have been done for £5-10m easily. I mean how many developers does it take to create a computer system? Yes i'm sure its complex but I bet the Chinese would have had it done in 6 months at a fraction of the price.
Another example of this countries wild spending.
Realistically, i'm sure it could have been done for £5-10m easily. I mean how many developers does it take to create a computer system? Yes i'm sure its complex but I bet the Chinese would have had it done in 6 months at a fraction of the price.
Another example of this countries wild spending.
03 August 2011, 04:46 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My guess that what 'it' was supposed to do was ill defined from the start, and you had too many consultants and experts saying it needed to be really complicated and bespoke which coincidentally meant they and their kind needed paying more.
03 August 2011, 10:05 PM
#18
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure that i remember a TV programme some 15 years ago saying that it would take over 100 years just to digitise the existing medical records. This was a logistical restriction, independent of potentially available compute power.
Thus we would have a very accurate record of millions of people who were already dead!!!!
Such a crazy scenario didn't seem to distract those on the potential IT gravy train though
mb
Thus we would have a very accurate record of millions of people who were already dead!!!!
Such a crazy scenario didn't seem to distract those on the potential IT gravy train though
mb
03 August 2011, 10:18 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Near Watford
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As to why it failed, the NAO have done a couple of good reports worth reading if you're bored enough. There is certainly plenty of blame to go around - nobody comes out well from that one.
03 August 2011, 10:35 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: cloud cuckoo land
Posts: 536
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CSC are dire but big problems with NHS people not managing the program well and avoiding responsibility wherever they can.
Not a Labour/Tory/Libdum problem, civil servants and outsourcers are never going to work out well.
Not a Labour/Tory/Libdum problem, civil servants and outsourcers are never going to work out well.
03 August 2011, 11:14 PM
#21
ahar...... PACS actually works very well (apart from loading archives from pre 2006) LOL , but whenever I load it to look at x-rays and scans the splash page is from GE ?
I just assumed GE sorted it
http://www.gehealthcare.com/worldwide.html
Shaun
I just assumed GE sorted it
http://www.gehealthcare.com/worldwide.html
Shaun
04 August 2011, 10:57 AM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Always the same by the looks of it. As soon as any government organisation decides to set up a computer program of some kind- the cost escalates out of sight and half the time it won't work anyway.
Like taking sweets from a child!
Les
Like taking sweets from a child!
Les
04 August 2011, 09:37 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure that i remember a TV programme some 15 years ago saying that it would take over 100 years just to digitise the existing medical records. This was a logistical restriction, independent of potentially available compute power.
Thus we would have a very accurate record of millions of people who were already dead!!!!
Such a crazy scenario didn't seem to distract those on the potential IT gravy train though
mb
Thus we would have a very accurate record of millions of people who were already dead!!!!
Such a crazy scenario didn't seem to distract those on the potential IT gravy train though
mb
Can't be anymore difficult than doing he census
04 August 2011, 10:15 PM
#25
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
04 August 2011, 10:41 PM
#26
The right way to have done this would have been for central NHS to fund the development of drop-in, self-contained patient management computer system that individual GP practises could apply to have installed if they want to, with installation cost shared 50/50 by central NHS and the practice. It would need to be designed to be fully operational in its own right as a single-practice system, but also be capable of connecting to a central system where all the details from individual practices can eventually be shared. That way the up-front costs would be absolutely tiny compared with a system that's meant to get rolled out across the whole country all at once (like this one was), and each component part that gets installed at a practice would actually serve a practical purpose, even if it's the only one that ever bothers.
Am I right, or am I right?
Am I right, or am I right?
05 August 2011, 09:07 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05 August 2011, 09:43 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 10,765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not everyone is computer savvy. Plus it means inputting everything onto the system, from birth. It includes blood test results, x-ray results, etc, etc. You have to know which stuff would have to be flagged on the first page, (as it were), like pace makers, implants, drug allergies. And that's merely scratching the surface.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
12
18 November 2015 07:03 AM