The National Audit Office is to publish a new report
into the UK's largest IT investment, the £12.4bn National Programme
for IT in the NHS.
Its decision follows criticism by MPs of the Audit Office's June
2006 report on the NHS programme.
Greg Clark, a member of the House of Commons Public Accounts
Committee, said the June report was "the most gushing" of all NAO
reports he had read. Another member of the Public Accounts
Committee, Richard Bacon, said the NAO's report on the NPfIT was
not up to the organisation's usual high standards.
The NAO's value for money reports on IT projects are usually
one-offs. So its decision to produce two reports on the NPfIT is an
unusual step.
Since the publication of the NAO's report on the National
Programme, several developments have worried IT managers and some
executives on the boards of NHS trusts across England:
- A loss of £382m at iSoft, the main software supplier to the
programme. The company is also the subject of an investigation by
the Financial Services Authority.
- The crash of a datacentre which interrupted NPfIT services in
some cases for several days. Some IT managers and executives on
boards of NHS trusts are now unsure whether they want to rely on
national services for critical clinical systems such as medical
records and e-prescriptions.
- Persistent suggestions that Accenture, the NPfIT's supplier in
the east of England, might have withdrawn from supplying most major
hospitals. Accenture, which operates between the borders of
Scotland and the edge of London, has declined to comment.
- Independent surveys by Nursix and Ipsos Mori which indicate
that support for the way the programme is being implemented may be
waning among some groups of NHS staff.
Clark said that in the light of recent events the published NAO
report "raises more questions than it answers". He added his
committee would hold a new hearing on the NPfIT, based on a new NAO
report. He expected the hearing to occur next year.
In its June report the NAO said it "may return to carry out a
further examination at a later date should this appear necessary".
But last week its spokesman told Computer Weekly that the NAO had
decided to publish a new report, though no date has been set.
The NAO has always stated it would be likely to do another
report on the programme in the future and NHS Connecting for Health
has always expected this given the scale and complexity of the
programme. When the NAO chooses to do this report at some point in
the future NHS Connecting for Health will co-operate fully.
Why a new report is needed
The NAO's report, published in June, was replete with praise for
Connecting for Health, the agency running the National Programme
for IT in the NHS.
But its tone was in marked contrast to three draft reports seen
by Computer Weekly. The drafts had been through a six-month
"clearance" process which allowed Connecting for Health to refuse
to sign off a report if it disagreed with its factual content.
The final report omitted some of the most serious criticisms of
the programme. It did not mention the effect on NHS trusts of
software delays.
Vote for your IT greats
Who have been the most influential people in IT in the past 40
years? The greatest organisations? The best hardware and software
technologies? As part of Computer Weekly’s 40th anniversary
celebrations, we are asking our readers who and what has really
made a difference?
Vote now at:
www.computerweekly.com/ITgreats