I copied this from the NHS Gazette & Herald about NHS Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems:
Blankton & Countyshire NHS Trust has been announced as another of the NHS Centres of Global Digital Excellence. The trust is one of two specifically told not to implement any of the leading EHR systems as the centrepiece of their digitisation strategy.
The recent Wachter report on Making IT Work in the NHS acknowledged that there was little choice but to implement US EHR systems in UK hospitals. However a representative of the NHS' National Information Board said they were mindful of two warnings in the report:
The risk of ‘vendor lock’ is real. For example, in the US, it will be very difficult to displace Epic from its near-monopoly position in large healthcare systems.
Another widely held criticism of today’s EHRs is their relative inattention to basic principles of user-centered design, particularly when judged against the electronic tools we have grown used to in the rest of our lives. There are several reasons for this. One is that EHRs were designed to address billing/financial functions at least as much as, if not more than, the clinical needs of doctors, nurses, and patients.
Both of these issues have been pressing problems with public sector IT investment in recent years.
Blankton & Countyshire have been given permission and money to experiment with new ideas. They have been encouraged to adopt an Adaptive Change approach; to start by looking at critical problems systemically involving the entire care system they are part of; and to work with SMEs, particularly those offering "Open Source" solutions.
The costs of correcting any potential detrimental impact on patients will be underwritten by NHS England. The success of the experiments will be judged on what is learnt and how effectively that learning is shared with others in the care system.
The recent Wachter report on Making IT Work in the NHS acknowledged that there was little choice but to implement US EHR systems in UK hospitals. However a representative of the NHS' National Information Board said they were mindful of two warnings in the report:
The risk of ‘vendor lock’ is real. For example, in the US, it will be very difficult to displace Epic from its near-monopoly position in large healthcare systems.
Another widely held criticism of today’s EHRs is their relative inattention to basic principles of user-centered design, particularly when judged against the electronic tools we have grown used to in the rest of our lives. There are several reasons for this. One is that EHRs were designed to address billing/financial functions at least as much as, if not more than, the clinical needs of doctors, nurses, and patients.
Both of these issues have been pressing problems with public sector IT investment in recent years.
Blankton & Countyshire have been given permission and money to experiment with new ideas. They have been encouraged to adopt an Adaptive Change approach; to start by looking at critical problems systemically involving the entire care system they are part of; and to work with SMEs, particularly those offering "Open Source" solutions.
The costs of correcting any potential detrimental impact on patients will be underwritten by NHS England. The success of the experiments will be judged on what is learnt and how effectively that learning is shared with others in the care system.
I didn't copy this from the NHS Gazette & Herald. I invented it. There's no NHS Gazette & Herald. But I'm hoping to read something like it somewhere soon. If it already exists, please let me know.