Leading computer science experts are this week writing
to parliament calling for an independent audit of the NHS national
programme for IT (NPfIT).
The signatories, 23 of the UK's top academics in
computer-related sciences, are concerned about the technical
feasibility of a fully integrated national programme.
Their open letter to the House of Commons Health Select
Committee echoes a call last year by Computer Weekly for an
independent audit of the project.
The letter is unprecedented. Suppliers say they have been warned
off speaking about the NPfIT, and IT directors in the NHS fear
being victimised if they openly express critical views. Academics,
who are independent of the NHS, can express their concerns without
fear of repercussions.
The letter said, "Concrete, objective information about NPfIT's
progress is not available to external observers. Reliable sources
within NPfIT have raised concerns about the technology itself.
"The National Audit Office report about NPfIT is delayed until
this summer, at the earliest; the report is not expected to address
major technical issues. As computer scientists, engineers and
informaticians, we question the wisdom of continuing NPfIT without
an independent assessment of its basic technical viability."
The open letter was sent to the Health Committee by Martyn
Thomas, visiting professor of software engineering at Oxford
University and expert witness in legal cases involving complex
software engineering issues. He has served on the advisory group
for the government's Foresight programme on intelligent
infrastructure systems.
The letter is endorsed by senior figures in the IT community.
Alan Stevens, chairman of the medicine and health panel for the
Worshipful Company of Information Technologists, supports the
proposed review.
He said, "It seems to me that the government should welcome a
thorough independent technical review of the NPfIT to help allay
the tide of concern being expressed by doctors and other front-line
healthcare professionals that their work lives and, indeed, patient
care may not be enhanced by the new systems."
Tom Brooks, a long-standing member of the Parliamentary IT
Committee, who for several years helped members of parliament with
their scrutiny of NHS IT development, said a thorough fundamental
independent review of the NPfIT was now overdue.
He said, "A number of informed parliamentarians and many senior
managers in NHS trusts have lost confidence in the implementation
plans and programme and in its management."
Brooks said that he would write to members of the Health Select
Committee to express support for the open letter and an independent
assessment of the NPfIT's basic technical viability.
He will also urge the Select Committee to "obtain and examine a
complete financial plan for implementing NPfIT to 2013, including
full trust costs" and explore whether the costly "top- down
approach is the right priority at this point in time".
There is widespread support for the objectives of the NPfIT,
especially its aim to allow the sharing of electronic medical
records on 50 million patients in England. But four years after it
was launched, the programme has a record of delays in the delivery
of fully integrated systems that are central to the programme's
original objectives.
Ministers had announced that a "full national health record
service" would be "implemented, and accessible nationally for out
of hours reference" by the end of 2005. But the widespread exchange
of patient files is not expected to happen in the near future.
Connecting for Health, which is managing the NPfIT, says there
have been thousands of deployments. But the agency's critics say
the national plan has largely turned into interim systems and local
initiatives that are reminiscent of some schemes underway before
the NPfIT was conceived. Meanwhile, suppliers working to deliver
fully integrated systems are facing problems.
Two weeks ago Accenture, the main supplier to two of the five
NHS "clusters" in England, announced a predicted write-off of £260m
on the contract. The share price of its main subcontractor iSoft,
which supplies three of the clusters, has more than halved since it
warned at the end of January that its profits on the NPfIT would be
lower than forecast.
Another major supplier, BT, has been fined more than once for
poor performance. A fourth, CSC, has announced significant job
losses and put itself up for sale.
In their letter the academics urge the commissioning of the
review "with all possible speed".
Connecting for Health declined to comment.
Do you support the call for an independent audit? Please
let us know your views, which we will pass on to the Health Select
Committee
Email:computer.weekly@rbi.co.uk