I completely believe that no patient records have been compromised - because the project to put them online is so late and over-budget (to the tune of GBP 20 billion) that it's likely never to be completed.
Let me put that number into perspective: We could buy a replacement fleet of Trident submarines from the NHS IT budget alone...
I work at a company that implements medical IT solutions for hospitals and anything with the NHS takes 3-5 times longer than in the US and other parts of Europe.
I would suspect that it's because the primary mission of the NHS is to provide jobs for bureaucrats, any healthcare we happen to get is just a side effect. Same with the MoD and submarines.
Even the most incompetent bureaucrat doesn't actively want to do a bad job. And I'm pretty sure that it doesn't say "we exist to provide jobs, with healthcare as a side effect" anywhere in the NHS charter.
Gov't IT projects suck because the RFP process is the most waterfall thing in existence, meaning the project is doomed from the start. And it goes downhill from there, with absurd amounts of politics and turf-protecting on all sides.
Well you could never say it outright, could you? But consider that the last government increased the number of nurses by 10% yet doubled the number of managers. Other than shuffling paper back and forth amongst each other, what do they do?
It's a truism that a bureaucracy always seeks to expand itself. They could all be brilliant at it, but the problem is a) it takes time and b) isn't actually necessary oh and c) they are all paid a fortune to do it, including their gold-plated pensions.
Well, it's not hard to convince me that large bureaucratic organizations turn into a mess.
But the same thing happens in private industry, too. Constantly. And nobody would ever label a private bureaucratic mess as "there to provide jobs first and turn a profit second". That was my bone of contention with your post, you're mistaking generic incompetence for something more perverse.
"primary mission of the NHS is to provide jobs for bureaucrats"
That might be the case for the bureaucrats in the NHS (of which there are too many) but I'm pretty sure that most of the actual front line staff are there to help patients.
I am not sure that I can fully answer what the root cause is, but most of the delays are due to the various levels of approval that take forever. In addition, they are very concerned with patient information security, and have various process to work through in regards to that.
Or perhaps not taken from the taxpayers in the first place?
[Edit: I am actually fairly left of center politically, but this does not mean that I am completely uncritical of what a government does with taxpayers money - and the last Labour government went insane with so many stupid projects and initiatives that we will have to live with for decades.]
It's a matter of perspective, there are shrill voices saying that if we scrap Trident all our economic woes will be over, but really there are much, much lower hanging fruit than that. A windfall tax on the big IT outsourcing firms would be a good start.
All that power and responsibility, and not being compensated for it could be dangerous. Wouldn't it deter anyone who wasn't wealthy from office, and/or make them vulnerable to corruption?
Comments
I completely believe that no patient records have been compromised - because the project to put them online is so late and over-budget (to the tune of GBP 20 billion) that it's likely never to be completed.
Let me put that number into perspective: We could buy a replacement fleet of Trident submarines from the NHS IT budget alone...
The project is such a clusterfuck that Accenture UK reccused itself from it. You know it's doomed when consultants decide to leave.
Rats do leave a sinking ship, as they say.
I work at a company that implements medical IT solutions for hospitals and anything with the NHS takes 3-5 times longer than in the US and other parts of Europe.
How come? What's causing it?
I would suspect that it's because the primary mission of the NHS is to provide jobs for bureaucrats, any healthcare we happen to get is just a side effect. Same with the MoD and submarines.
Even the most incompetent bureaucrat doesn't actively want to do a bad job. And I'm pretty sure that it doesn't say "we exist to provide jobs, with healthcare as a side effect" anywhere in the NHS charter.
Gov't IT projects suck because the RFP process is the most waterfall thing in existence, meaning the project is doomed from the start. And it goes downhill from there, with absurd amounts of politics and turf-protecting on all sides.
Well you could never say it outright, could you? But consider that the last government increased the number of nurses by 10% yet doubled the number of managers. Other than shuffling paper back and forth amongst each other, what do they do?
It's a truism that a bureaucracy always seeks to expand itself. They could all be brilliant at it, but the problem is a) it takes time and b) isn't actually necessary oh and c) they are all paid a fortune to do it, including their gold-plated pensions.
Well, it's not hard to convince me that large bureaucratic organizations turn into a mess.
But the same thing happens in private industry, too. Constantly. And nobody would ever label a private bureaucratic mess as "there to provide jobs first and turn a profit second". That was my bone of contention with your post, you're mistaking generic incompetence for something more perverse.
Mmm, but corporations frequently correct for that by downsizing. Governments do it very, very rarely.
The PCS union picketed Downing Street over proposals to reduce their redundancy package from 3 years salary to 2...
"primary mission of the NHS is to provide jobs for bureaucrats"
That might be the case for the bureaucrats in the NHS (of which there are too many) but I'm pretty sure that most of the actual front line staff are there to help patients.
I am not sure that I can fully answer what the root cause is, but most of the delays are due to the various levels of approval that take forever. In addition, they are very concerned with patient information security, and have various process to work through in regards to that.
They have to work out how many Tridents they could have bought for each part of the project.
It’s wasted either way. £20bn would be much better sunk into renewables and energy independence.
Or perhaps not taken from the taxpayers in the first place?
[Edit: I am actually fairly left of center politically, but this does not mean that I am completely uncritical of what a government does with taxpayers money - and the last Labour government went insane with so many stupid projects and initiatives that we will have to live with for decades.]
It's a matter of perspective, there are shrill voices saying that if we scrap Trident all our economic woes will be over, but really there are much, much lower hanging fruit than that. A windfall tax on the big IT outsourcing firms would be a good start.
Having a salary cap for public sector employees might be another way of doing things - say the same level as the PM (£140K or so).
A more interesting scenario would be to cap all MP's pay, incl. the PM's, at the national average wage.
All that power and responsibility, and not being compensated for it could be dangerous. Wouldn't it deter anyone who wasn't wealthy from office, and/or make them vulnerable to corruption?
Serving as an MP is a privilege, not a normal job.
Make it the median wage rather than the average one and I’d agree with you.