Npfit gone - hopefully the parasites will now die
Discussion
A Department of Health review of the National Programme for IT has concluded that a centralised, national approach is no longer required, and that a more locally-led plural system of procurement should operate, whilst continuing with national applications already procured.
A new approach to implementation will take a modular approach, allowing NHS organisations to introduce smaller, more manageable change, in line with their business requirements and capacity. NHS services will be the customers of a more plural system of IT embodying the core assumption of ‘connect all’, rather than ‘replace all’ systems. This reflects the coalition government’s commitment to ending top-down government and enabling localised decision-making.
The review of the National Programme for IT has also concluded that retaining a national infrastructure will deliver best value for taxpayers. Applications such as Choose and Book, Electronic Prescription Service and PACS have been delivered and are now integrated with the running of current health services. Now there is a level of maturity in these applications they no longer need to be managed as projects but as IT services under the control of the NHS. Consequently, in line with the broader NHS reforms, the National Programme for IT will no longer be run as a centralised national programme and decision making and responsibility will be localised.
A new approach to implementation will take a modular approach, allowing NHS organisations to introduce smaller, more manageable change, in line with their business requirements and capacity. NHS services will be the customers of a more plural system of IT embodying the core assumption of ‘connect all’, rather than ‘replace all’ systems. This reflects the coalition government’s commitment to ending top-down government and enabling localised decision-making.
The review of the National Programme for IT has also concluded that retaining a national infrastructure will deliver best value for taxpayers. Applications such as Choose and Book, Electronic Prescription Service and PACS have been delivered and are now integrated with the running of current health services. Now there is a level of maturity in these applications they no longer need to be managed as projects but as IT services under the control of the NHS. Consequently, in line with the broader NHS reforms, the National Programme for IT will no longer be run as a centralised national programme and decision making and responsibility will be localised.
... And presumably any plans for NHS national medical records database die with this.
Does anybody else not find it a little bit of a worry that in 2010 you doctor's most accurate means of obtaining you medical history is usuallly by asking you?
Fortunately no one keeps count of how many people die in A&E as a result of this... That would just be morbid wouldn't it?
Oh well.
Does anybody else not find it a little bit of a worry that in 2010 you doctor's most accurate means of obtaining you medical history is usuallly by asking you?
Fortunately no one keeps count of how many people die in A&E as a result of this... That would just be morbid wouldn't it?
Oh well.
G_T said:
... And presumably any plans for NHS national medical records database die with this.
Does anybody else not find it a little bit of a worry that in 2010 you doctor's most accurate means of obtaining you medical history is usuallly by asking you?
Fortunately no one keeps count of how many people die in A&E as a result of this... That would just be morbid wouldn't it?
Oh well.
Like so many of these NHS IT initiatives, a lot of great ideas which would deliver very real benefits to all involved but with the previous Government, we simply could not trust them with the data. If they put legislation in place first to say that the data would never be used by anybody other than medical professional treating you . . . then maybe. But they left the door open for the data to be mined by almost anybody who was willing to pay. Does anybody else not find it a little bit of a worry that in 2010 you doctor's most accurate means of obtaining you medical history is usuallly by asking you?
Fortunately no one keeps count of how many people die in A&E as a result of this... That would just be morbid wouldn't it?
Oh well.
Rusty Arches said:
IT contractors, worse than dole scroungers.
A tad unfair .. Dupont aside .. you can't blame them for accepting payment for work - blame the idiot that signs off for work that is poorly specified or poorly performed. In a greater sense, we are all contractors in a way - it's only the terms of the contract that vary.cuneus said:
Applications such as Choose and Book, Electronic Prescription Service and PACS have been delivered and are now integrated with the running of current health services.
I'm a community pharmacist. No way has EPS "been delivered" or "integrated with the running of current helath services". There's a few pilot sites, most of which report problems and a much slower service than old fashioned bits of paper.I understand "choose and book" is available but almost totally ignored.
No idea what PACS is!
What a load of old rubbish.
choose and book is entirely pointless for us - we only have one hospital near by and only evr get given one option on the choose and book service. But someone does sen us a letter telling us that we could choose and book if we had more than one option to choose form.
The odd thing is that if you only have one option, if you don't "choose" your only option then you odn't get an appointment. Which complete 'tard came up with that then!
The odd thing is that if you only have one option, if you don't "choose" your only option then you odn't get an appointment. Which complete 'tard came up with that then!
G_T said:
... And presumably any plans for NHS national medical records database die with this.
Does anybody else not find it a little bit of a worry that in 2010 you doctor's most accurate means of obtaining you medical history is usuallly by asking you?
Fortunately no one keeps count of how many people die in A&E as a result of this... That would just be morbid wouldn't it?
Oh well.
Ah I wondered when someone was going to trout out that old justification chestnut. Does anybody else not find it a little bit of a worry that in 2010 you doctor's most accurate means of obtaining you medical history is usuallly by asking you?
Fortunately no one keeps count of how many people die in A&E as a result of this... That would just be morbid wouldn't it?
Oh well.
Those events are rare - I have never even heard of it happening.
Anyone with a serious allergy might like to consider Medicalert
Even if a full medical history is available under a planned procedure things can still go very badly wrong (e.g. adverse reaction to anaesthetic) the outcome largely depending on how it is managed.
Rusty Arches said:
IT contractors, worse than dole scroungers.
I resemble that remark.Actually, not really the IT contractors issue here, the reason these government projects always fail is the blend of:
-contractually niaive and incompetent government personnel
-contractually savvy, greedy and bulls
tting 'partner' companies-And I'm gonna guess probably a few big brown envelopes to make sure that they can each look after each other's best interests for as long as possible.
I'm not cynical (actually I am) but I've been involved in too many projects where the 'partner' has managed to run rings round the client, and the client has been so stupid they've not seen it.
And that's usually before anyone even gets to coding anything!
cuneus said:
G_T said:
... And presumably any plans for NHS national medical records database die with this.
Does anybody else not find it a little bit of a worry that in 2010 you doctor's most accurate means of obtaining you medical history is usuallly by asking you?
Fortunately no one keeps count of how many people die in A&E as a result of this... That would just be morbid wouldn't it?
Oh well.
Ah I wondered when someone was going to trout out that old justification chestnut. Does anybody else not find it a little bit of a worry that in 2010 you doctor's most accurate means of obtaining you medical history is usuallly by asking you?
Fortunately no one keeps count of how many people die in A&E as a result of this... That would just be morbid wouldn't it?
Oh well.
Those events are rare - I have never even heard of it happening.
Anyone with a serious allergy might like to consider Medicalert
Even if a full medical history is available under a planned procedure things can still go very badly wrong (e.g. adverse reaction to anaesthetic) the outcome largely depending on how it is managed.
You've never heard of it? What insight do you have into it?
Allergies are not the principal concern as I understand it. More an issue of not knowing the patients medical background. Imagine how much time could be saved if you didn't have to wait for lab results and have to re-diagnose existing conditions?
I would think the fact things could still go wrong is a bit of moot point really. It doesn't change the fact that a number of patient mortalies could be avoided through a more
centralised system of medical records (not to mention the fact the current paper based system is ludicrously inefficient and must cost hundreds of millions to local health authorities!).
I recently attended a lecture bye Dr. Tom McDonald of the University of Dundee where he also pointed out the huge potential for epidemiological research that is currently lost. I.e. we could use the data to taylor drugs to populations and gain more insight into disease.
The Scottish Government has made attempts at it but from what I can see their QUANGO has failed to deliver, like the IT contractors you choose to vent your bile at.
Busa_Rush said:
G_T said:
... And presumably any plans for NHS national medical records database die with this.
Does anybody else not find it a little bit of a worry that in 2010 you doctor's most accurate means of obtaining you medical history is usuallly by asking you?
Fortunately no one keeps count of how many people die in A&E as a result of this... That would just be morbid wouldn't it?
Oh well.
Like so many of these NHS IT initiatives, a lot of great ideas which would deliver very real benefits to all involved but with the previous Government, we simply could not trust them with the data. If they put legislation in place first to say that the data would never be used by anybody other than medical professional treating you . . . then maybe. But they left the door open for the data to be mined by almost anybody who was willing to pay. Does anybody else not find it a little bit of a worry that in 2010 you doctor's most accurate means of obtaining you medical history is usuallly by asking you?
Fortunately no one keeps count of how many people die in A&E as a result of this... That would just be morbid wouldn't it?
Oh well.
I think the problem with your suggestion is that medical records do need to be viewed by a number of staff. However in terms of security, the electronic versions of patient are generally more secure than the paper based ones. Afterall you don't need a login and password identify to review a file left in the corridor and with the electronic medical records there are digital fingerprints of everyone who has reviewed so at least it can be audited...
But here's an interesting one for you... Do you know that your personal data (albeit anonymised) is probably already available to be purchased from you GP?
http://www.gprd.com/news/
G_T said:
Just to clarify I'm not defending NHS IT contractors. Just concerned about the loss of a potentially very valuable resource.
You've never heard of it? What insight do you have into it?
Allergies are not the principal concern as I understand it. More an issue of not knowing the patients medical background. Imagine how much time could be saved if you didn't have to wait for lab results and have to re-diagnose existing conditions?
I would think the fact things could still go wrong is a bit of moot point really. It doesn't change the fact that a number of patient mortalies could be avoided through a more
centralised system of medical records (not to mention the fact the current paper based system is ludicrously inefficient and must cost hundreds of millions to local health authorities!).
I recently attended a lecture bye Dr. Tom McDonald of the University of Dundee where he also pointed out the huge potential for epidemiological research that is currently lost. I.e. we could use the data to taylor drugs to populations and gain more insight into disease.
The Scottish Government has made attempts at it but from what I can see their QUANGO has failed to deliver, like the IT contractors you choose to vent your bile at.
Very valuable resource - how valuable exactly?You've never heard of it? What insight do you have into it?
Allergies are not the principal concern as I understand it. More an issue of not knowing the patients medical background. Imagine how much time could be saved if you didn't have to wait for lab results and have to re-diagnose existing conditions?
I would think the fact things could still go wrong is a bit of moot point really. It doesn't change the fact that a number of patient mortalies could be avoided through a more
centralised system of medical records (not to mention the fact the current paper based system is ludicrously inefficient and must cost hundreds of millions to local health authorities!).
I recently attended a lecture bye Dr. Tom McDonald of the University of Dundee where he also pointed out the huge potential for epidemiological research that is currently lost. I.e. we could use the data to taylor drugs to populations and gain more insight into disease.
The Scottish Government has made attempts at it but from what I can see their QUANGO has failed to deliver, like the IT contractors you choose to vent your bile at.
Lab tests will be redone - no matter what
How many fatalities would have been avoidable if the SCR had been in place and available ?
"like the IT contractors you choose to vent your bile at." - Actually that was aimed at the LSP's like BT
cuneus said:
Very valuable resource - how valuable exactly?
Lab tests will be redone - no matter what
How many fatalities would have been avoidable if the SCR had been in place and available ?
"like the IT contractors you choose to vent your bile at." - Actually that was aimed at the LSP's like BT
I'm afraid the Summary Care Record is not something I'm familiar with. I'm based in Scotland and principally concerned with research. Perhaps you could expand on your point?Lab tests will be redone - no matter what
How many fatalities would have been avoidable if the SCR had been in place and available ?
"like the IT contractors you choose to vent your bile at." - Actually that was aimed at the LSP's like BT
I'm not referring to routine bloods. I'm talking about wasted resource to rediagnose problems, for example what about if a patient admitted with dementia and intestinal pain we then run a microbiology samples and more specialised laboratory tests only to find out the patient has a history of Crohns and actually needs to get his bowel resected pronto. In the time wasted tracking down his records and simulataneously running tests we could have the poor bugger waiting to be seen in theatre.
Alternatively what if a patient is currently participating on a clinical trial of a medication and, not knowing what he is on in the trial (as they never bloody do), the A+E team administer a medicine that interacts badly with the drug and kills him?
Alright my examples aren't great but surely you can see the obvious benefit in having instant access to a patient's medical records?
Value? Well if you could successfully identify patterns of disease and had the data to work with you could save billions in ineffective treatments and perhaps even redirect funds to prevention. Not to mention the fact that our healthcare system would ensure better quality of life! The possibilities are endless!
G_T said:
I'm afraid the Summary Care Record is not something I'm familiar with. I'm based in Scotland and principally concerned with research. Perhaps you could expand on your point?
I'm not referring to routine bloods. I'm talking about wasted resource to rediagnose problems, for example what about if a patient admitted with dementia and intestinal pain we then run a microbiology samples and more specialised laboratory tests only to find out the patient has a history of Crohns and actually needs to get his bowel resected pronto. In the time wasted tracking down his records and simulataneously running tests we could have the poor bugger waiting to be seen in theatre.
Alternatively what if a patient is currently participating on a clinical trial of a medication and, not knowing what he is on in the trial (as they never bloody do), the A+E team administer a medicine that interacts badly with the drug and kills him?
Alright my examples aren't great but surely you can see the obvious benefit in having instant access to a patient's medical records?
Value? Well if you could successfully identify patterns of disease and had the data to work with you could save billions in ineffective treatments and perhaps even redirect funds to prevention. Not to mention the fact that our healthcare system would ensure better quality of life! The possibilities are endless!
There will always be the odd scenarios where a history would prove invaluable especially if you expand outside A&E. What is the value of that ? In effect we are talking numbers - please provide some!I'm not referring to routine bloods. I'm talking about wasted resource to rediagnose problems, for example what about if a patient admitted with dementia and intestinal pain we then run a microbiology samples and more specialised laboratory tests only to find out the patient has a history of Crohns and actually needs to get his bowel resected pronto. In the time wasted tracking down his records and simulataneously running tests we could have the poor bugger waiting to be seen in theatre.
Alternatively what if a patient is currently participating on a clinical trial of a medication and, not knowing what he is on in the trial (as they never bloody do), the A+E team administer a medicine that interacts badly with the drug and kills him?
Alright my examples aren't great but surely you can see the obvious benefit in having instant access to a patient's medical records?
Value? Well if you could successfully identify patterns of disease and had the data to work with you could save billions in ineffective treatments and perhaps even redirect funds to prevention. Not to mention the fact that our healthcare system would ensure better quality of life! The possibilities are endless!
How many patients have been harmed through Npfit?
grumbledoak said:
G_T said:
The possibilities are endless!
They sure are. And the first people to buy this info, and the DNA database, will be insurance companies. Guess why.As I've just shown you the data from your GP is already available see link again;
http://www.gprd.com/news/
Despite my complaints we also still hold details of laboratory tests and other electronic reports in our hospital but you have absolute zero chance of obtaining identifiable versions of them in the private sector.
Enough of your Orwellian non-sense. Currently access is restricted to those who need the information. Also, for the purposes of research (as I've suggested) the data is always anonymised.
I've heard that some Scandanavian countries have an opt-out system in reference to the national database. But when you opt out you also are no longer eligible for the national health care.
G_T said:
Value? Well if you could successfully identify patterns of disease and had the data to work with you could save billions in ineffective treatments and perhaps even redirect funds to prevention. Not to mention the fact that our healthcare system would ensure better quality of life! The possibilities are endless!
Stop all the pissheads coming into casualty at the weekend - job done 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff