IT suppliers critical of the £2.3bn national IT programme have
been told not to talk to the media
The head of IT in the NHS has told suppliers they could be removed
from shortlists for contracts and excluded from doing business with
the NHS for 10 years, if they publicly question the national IT
programme.
Richard Granger, who took over as director-general of IT in the NHS
in September 2002, also told suppliers they could be cast into the
abyss for criticising the programme, for which the government has
committed an extra £2.3bn on IT over three years, on top of the
£850m already spent each year.
His warning came at Avonmouth House, a conference centre in South
London, on 3 December 2002 when suppliers met to hear Granger give
details, at various sessions during the day, of the national
programme. One of the supplier's delegates recorded what was said
for its internal minutes.
The Department of Health told Computer Weekly that Granger had "no
intention of blacklisting suppliers" and his comments needed to be
put into the context that he wanted any criticisms made directly to
him and not through the media.
Granger is the UK's highest-paid civil servant on £250,000 a year.
He was recruited by the Department of Health to run its national IT
programme which consists of four main projects: infrastructure,
electronic patient records, appointment booking and
prescriptions.
IT directors have welcomed the extra money but some are concerned
that it will be spent on systems that may go largely unused by
clinicians because they feel no sense of ownership of technology
that has been imposed centrally or regionally.
There is also concern that Granger's management style may
discourage criticism, and particularly whistleblowers, and he may
therefore find himself surrounded by willing suppliers and others
who agree with him.
"If he [Granger] can be that dictatorial with suppliers, it
certainly sends a message to me," said an IT director at a trust in
the North of England.
Several IT managers said they valued their jobs too much to say
anything publicly, positive or not, about the national
programme.
Last year the health minister told the House of Commons, "We expect
a climate of openness and dialogue in the national health
service."
Among those who heard Granger's comments at the December
conference, several fully supported the national programme and
upheld his right to warn suppliers about speaking out.
"It was really a way to try and create an impression and a view of
how strongly he feels," said one consultant at the conference. "He
was trying to tell suppliers: let me know what needs changing, I'll
go away and make a very serious attempt to change it and when I've
changed it, be supportive."
Asked about Granger's threats, the Department of Health said, "Any
comments to IT suppliers were made in the context of moving
rational and constructive discussion into the health and business
arena rather than the media arena."
There was "nothing to fear from this open approach to collaborative
national procurement or by those suppliers which have an interest
in delivering the applications and services around the national IT
programme."
The department spokesman said it had received strong support from
suppliers for the national programme. "With regard to discussion on
the procurement process, it is our firm hope that this will be
carried out in a professional manner and through the established
formal channels in line with other major national procurements in
more mature public IT sectors."
Has Whitehall learnt Wessex IT lessons?
An audit report in 1992 into an IT disaster in the Wessex health
authority found that it was caused by a management style which
discouraged criticism and open debate, too close a relationship
between the authority and some suppliers, and the imposition of
systems on resistant clinicians and IT specialists.