NHS IT System cut, Is this the end for DII too?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Infiltrator, Dec 6, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8397854.stm

    Cameron has stated that he wants a moritorium on all goverment IT systems, so does that now signal the death of DII tranch 3? I know it's supposed to modernise all defence IT, but let's be honest about it, ATLAS are over budget and behind schedule, we have systems that do the job now, do we really need it?
  2. Nope. Its arrse.
  3. DII… snort!
  4. Tories are looking to significantly reduce the scale of all future public sector IT programmes. Departments will be pushed to use systems procured from other frameworks, and I'd expect serious pressure to move lots of application development offshore.

    The rider to this, however, is that the security arguments for DII, DFTS and some similar, secure Home Office projects (such as IMP), override the need to reuse or work offshore.
  5. I was lucky enough to be at one of the launch events when the NHS turkey was unveiled. The basic concept was clearly flawed from day one, and it was so badly executed that major IT companies, well trained on sucking money from the public tit, paid up to walk away from it.

    DII and JPA are pretty naff, but JPA at least is based on a standard commercial application which is quite widely used.

    There might be savings to be made on various bits of Defence IT, but nothing compared to the scale of the NHS IT cancellation. The only problem is that sacking this disaster still leaves a lot of NHS IT needs unmet, so it is quite likely that the whole thing is going to start again in a few years.
  6. Who can see your records? Any NHS medical staff?

    If I get hauled into Stornoway A&E after drinking myself into a coma during a distillery tour, will they be able to pull up my records and find out about my Viagra addiction?
  7. Government IT systems have always been a problem mainly due to mission creep and also badly thought out requirements. That and suppliers that are only in it to screw as much money out of the tax payer rather than provide a service again will lead to ineffectual implementation.

    I personally would like to see government employed programmers and project managers rather than contractors.
  8. NPfIT is out of date, over budget & under staffed!
    And to think i nearly got a job implermenting it a few years ago.
    Would have been a black mark on my IT career!!
  9. No, that was one of the things the new system was supposed to provide, access to a person's records no matter where in the country that person was being treated.

    As a medical secretary, I can see blood results, xrays and path lab reports that have been ordered at the hospital, whether by hospital staff or the GP surgeries the hospital serves. The staff that are able to view these things have to apply for permission from the relevant department with need to know reasons. Bizarrely, the nurses on the ward have to come to me to get results on patients because they've been denied access! 8O

    From the outset we were questioning whether the new system would get up and running as for a start, each GP surgery and hospital have their own systems running. Thinking of the cost of going into each site and changing their software so everything was compatible was mind-boggling.
  10. We were one of the early adopter PCTs for Lorenzo and in some ways it's a useful system and the basic functionality of our system was good. However as G_M above points out, the variety and number of other IT systems that required to be either compatible or to be consumed by Lorenzo are huge. The idea is a good one but as usual the execution has been woeful....

    Many of the most useful bits were only supposed to come on stream in 2014, and that was for the short period that it was on time!
  11. As I understand it that's because someone for the government actually wrote a half decent contracts for once. According to the Times 'Tough contracts mean that software manufacturers and suppliers are paid only when the required systems are delivered and working, meaning the project is still largely on budget.' Or are they misinformed? Of course we'll still probably get stuck paying the penalty clauses for cancelling the thing.
  12. The NHS spine was a brilliant idea but let down by the amount of IT systems already in use. If, for example, you are registered with a doctor in Bradford and are visiting Bristol. You get knocked down by a passing bus and are taken to the cas dept. You have a penicillin allergy. The spine would enable the practitioner at Bristol to call up your records from Bradford and check on things like this. Great idea. Unfortunately, the suits that run the NHS did not check out the pitfalls. So many different IT systems in use in GPs and hospitals. IT security means only those with smart cards can log on and access the data and everyone in a hospital or surgery or wherever would have to go through the rigmarole of producing 3 items of ID, a bank statement etc and enter 3 passwords to get on the system. Servers would be removed from hospitals and surgeries thereby accessing everything by a telephone connection. Major companies (EMIS, Vision etc) were invited to bid for the contract and had to state that this was hack-proof now and (here's the rub) in the future. How can anyone guarantee against any future hackers? So, 12 billion (that's 12,000,000,000) quid already spent and it doesn't work. In trials, some GPs hacked into the system just to prove they could do it. I used my smart card in a different GP surgery, was refused logon but was asked if I wanted to change my password. I did and it let me in. Wow! 12 billion quid and it was that easy to get in. Then, of course, the problem of 50 odd million people in the country having to give permission for others to read your medical records. A no brainer from day 1, but what the hell, we had money to burn then, didn't we? Now that we're broke, we'll save 50 million so we can give it all to the bankers to increase their bonuses.
    According to Wiki (the fount of all knowledge) there are some 10,300 GP surgeries in the UK. Split the 12 billion amongst them and they'd have got around 1.2 million each. Just imagine how may extra doctors they could have employed to actually see patients without having to wait weeks to get an appointment. But, then, not a great technological breakthrough to actually have doctors available to see patients when it could be spent on making sure they all reach the Stasi enforced targets.
  13. A2_Matelot

    A2_Matelot LE Book Reviewer

    The end for DII, I doubt it largely because it is simply THE number one priority for VCDS and 2PUS, without it they fail their objectives and hence we are stuck with a system that is unfit for purpose, will deliver absolutely no significant operational benefit over its predecessors and is supplied by a consortia and IPT who have no consideration for the operational imperative.

    IF the DII programme was scrutinised by an impartial outsider they would see a programme nearing its midway point:

    - that had decided to concentrate on the easy deliverables - the fixed UK infrastructure - and had made a total horlicks of that in every conceivable way

    - that had singularly failed to deliver a fit for purpose deployed variant after spending near to £150M trying,

    - that was told by the Royal Navy that its afloat offerings were unfit for pupose and could not be rolled out (have another 6 months to sort it out!),

    - had the deployed variant rejected by the Royal Marines because its simply just too damn big!

    - Has yet to develop and offer any suitable solution for submarines, RFAs or minor war vessels

    - that cannot under any circumstance actually complete rollout to the Royal Navy before the end of the contract

    - that has yet to deliver its own interoperability guard relying instead upon a legacy system it vowed to replace!

    And this is just the tin and string; the applications it needs for C2 are an even bigger disaster! The JC2SP programme has been slashed to such a degree that it cannot meet its original aims. The applications are currently being scrutinized to see if reducing them any further will mean JC2SP can deliver anything!

    And there is the spin; JC2SP probably will deliver on time - but what will it deliver if measured against its original URD?

    Meanwhile because DII FD and afloat are already over 3 years late we're forced to support the current C2 systems and we're getting them finally into the shape they should have always been. So when DII and JC2SP DO arrive we'll be forced to use them and take a major capability step backwards whilst wasting BILLIONS that could have been used for major procurements or provided support to operations!
  14. NPfIT is rather under spent so far. Oasis, Cerner etc. aren't very good.

    PACS has been quite useful but the number of staff (clinical and other) who can't use their accounts properly is staggering.

    As for IG (snigger - total lip service. I've reported 30+ breaches this week alone nad it's not even Wednesday).

    Oasis is not very secure. One colleague pulled up all my medical records and this in a trust I've never been to as a patient. This using a basic administrative assistant's account.

    If they really want to save money, train all staff the basics of computer use on a networks and how to use Outlook if they're not being moved to nhs.net.

    Oh and ensure the trainers in the trusts know how to use the kit as well.