Is clinical IT mayhem good for [the IT]
CfH leader Richard Granger
speaks out UK
being asked to become entirely dependent on clinical IT in performing their
roles, and the data from the clinical IT will undoubtedly be used to alter
clinical power structures, reimbursement, and liability.
Blind faith in the IT and business "experts" is a sure path to hell.
Here's an example of the issues clinicians face from the providers and implementors of this technology - mostly non-clinicians. This collage of issues comes from the former head of the
"Sometimes we put in stuff that I'm just ashamed of ... Some of the stuff that Cerner has put in recently is appalling ... Cerner and prime contractor Fujitsu had not listened to end users ... Failed marriages and co-dependency with subcontractors ... A string of problems ranging from missing appointment records, to inability to report on wait times ... Almost a dozen cancelled go-live dates ... Stupid or evil people ... Stockholm syndrome -identifying with suppliers' interests rather than your own ... A little coterie of people out there who are "alleged experts" who were dismissed for reasons of non-performance."
It is quite literally amazing how a national program to implement health IT, that has spent billions of dollars to date, is plagued by the same problems I observed and started writing about a decade ago at this website. Every one of the above issues, and more, are found even in organizational-level clinical IT projects.
One wonders if anyone will learn from these issues.
I tend to doubt it. The motto of this industry may well be "Clinical IT mayhem is good for [the IT] business."
This is unfortunate. I am a strong advocate of clinical IT, but as I have written on many occasions, clinical computing and business computing (management information systems) are different subspecialties of computing, and clinical IT will significantly benefit healthcare quality, efficiency and costs, but only if done well.
In getting clinical IT 'done well", it's not about "process" and "six sigma" and "business process re-engineering." There simply is no substitute for brains, integrity (conflict of interest and integrity being polar opposites), proper expertise, and significantly less arrogance from the IT industry about how virtual clinical tools should be developed and deployed.
Granger says he is 'ashamed' of some systems
E-Health Insider, 10 Jul 2007
The departing head of the NHS IT programme Richard Granger has said he is ashamed of the quality of some of the systems put into the NHS by Connecting for Health suppliers, singling Cerner out for criticism.
Going further than he before in acknowledging the extent of failings of systems provided to some parts of the NHS - such as Milton Keynes – the Connecting for Health boss, said "Sometimes we put in stuff that I'm just ashamed of. Some of the stuff that Cerner has put in recently is appalling."
He said a key reason for the failings of systems provided was that Cerner and prime contractor Fujitsu had not listened to end users. "It really isn't usable because they have building a system with Fujitsu without listening to what end users want. They have taken some account but they then had to take a lot more. Now they are being held to account because that's my job."
The latest remarks, quoted in an interview in the current issue of CIO magazine , appear to make a nonsense of Granger's June statement that unless agreement was reached between Computer Sciences Corporation and iSoft over its acquisition by IBA Health, Cerner could wind up as the system used across the whole of the English NHS.
In December 2005 Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre became the first NHS site to go live with Cerner Millennium under the NHS IT programme. It has since suffered a string of problems ranging from missing appointment records, to inability to report on wait times. The Millennium system – now installed at six NHS locations in the South – remains unable to directly integrate with Choose and Book or meet 18-week reporting requirements.
In April, 79 members of staff from Milton Keynes NHS Trust signed a letter outlining their frustrations at the Millennium system, stating: "In our opinion the system should not be installed in any further hospitals.
CfH said there had been some "unacceptable problems" with the new system installed at
At the end of June, David Wrede, a senior consultant at
Speaking at the BMA's annual representative meeting on 29 June Wrede said: "We should have a public inquiry. The people who made the original Cerner contract should be brought to book and as Cerner Millennium R0 [release zero] is not fit for purpose…" The motion calling for a public enquiry was passed.
The first Cerner installation by BT, the NPfIT contractor in
Granger also cast further light on Accenture's departure from the NPfIT programme at the end of 2006, describing their relationship with sub-contractor iSoft as a failed marriage, in which they had failed to realise their co-dependency. He contrasted the relationship with iSoft with Accenture's performance on Picture Archiving and Communication Systems with Agfa as its sub-contractor. "When they work with a mature, high quality vendor that recognises Accenture as in charge and they're doing it their way, you get a quite good deal and they'll do the job."
The CfH boss goes on to state that he has been careful to avoid Stockholm syndrome -identifying with suppliers' interests rather than those of the NHS - as problems have mounted.
"One supplier asked for an extra £500m to deal with cost overruns. He received a succinct refusal but there are many places where the response would have been different; where threats of bad publicity and contract disputes would persuade an organisation to start bunging millions of pounds a month in addition to the existing contract, just to cover up," says Granger.
Elsewhere in the in-depth valedictory interview carried out ahead of Granger announcing his resignation, he rounds on critics and erstwhile colleagues, saying. "Either people are really stupid or evil. It's difficult to be compassionate with people who claim that suppliers are going out of business because they are not getting paid or they were withdrawing from wishing to do business with the NHS. At the same time, they are saying they [the suppliers] have been bunged millions of pounds that weren't budgeted for. It's stupid or wicked."
He reserves particular ire for so-called experts. "There is a little coterie of people out there who are alleged experts and who worked on this programme. They were dismissed for reasons of non-performance or in one case, for breach of commercial confidentiality.
"He actually sent our financial model to a supplier and that's why we suspended him. He then resigned which is an answer in itself."
Granger continued: "Who contributed evidence to the public accounts committees? For just about every figure quoted as an expert in this programme, I've got HR files on them. They generate a piece of opinion that often substantiates their world view."
The full CIO article can be read at