Ailing NHS IT white elephant project takes turn for worse
Firm delivery dates for the long delayed first deployments of Lorenzo, the key software for the records, were being promised for the north of England.
BT, which was responsible for London, had successfully installed new systems in a string of mental health and community trusts, and it had a programme for their much more difficult installation in the big hospitals in the capital. While there would be problems ahead, BT said, “we feel we have cracked the nut”.
Fujitsu was still negotiating a “refresh” of its contract, covering the whole of the south of England.
And a few parts of the programme were complete – the installation of digital imaging in place of X-ray film in every hospital in England, for example. Others were making progress.
The National Audit Office reported in May that the £12.7bn project for the full electronic record was running at least four years late. But it remained broadly on budget and, while difficult, still appeared “feasible”, the NAO said.
Since then, however, the project has virtually ground to a halt. There are continuing difficulties with new systems installed in the big hospitals and no deployments planned for the next few months.
Furthermore, while the health department has agreed in principle that NHS hospitals should be given more freedom to customise their systems, there are few details of the extent to which that will be permitted. A new permanent leader for the programme has only just been installed, following the departure of Richard Granger in January.
Matthew Swindells, who until May was the department’s interim chief information officer, says there is “clearly a hiatus”. But it is unclear, he said “whether that is because there is a genuine problem, or because of the shift in leadership means there is nobody pushing it at the moment”.
For long-standing critics of the programme such as Richard Bacon, the South Norfolk MP who has tracked its progress as a member of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, it is clearly now “time to go back to the drawing board”.
The programme’s centralised approach “has been a catastrophe”, he says. But because suppliers are only paid when systems work, “there is still a relatively big pot of money that has not been spent”.
This should be given to local hospitals to enable them to buy the system of their choice, Mr Bacon said. “If there is to be a chance of getting this back on track there has to be 100 per cent local ownership of the programme,” he said.
Jon Hoeksma, editor of E-Health Insider, a website that has tracked the programme from its inception, said: “Something has to give. The programme can’t just keep saying: ‘Give us another three months, give us another three months’.”