back to article BT gets 8 NHS trusts in south

NHS Connecting for Health has agreed that BT will take responsibility for the Cerner Millennium installations at eight acute trusts in the south of England. The NHS National Programme for IT has lacked a local service provider in the south of England since CfH fired Fujitsu in May 2008. "NHS Connecting for Health can confirm …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward

    I'm not religious

    But God help them !!!

    BT are ~the~ most incompetent bunch of arseholes I've ever had the misfortune to deal with... and I don't just mean with home broadband - I'm talking managed services too.

  2. Christoph

    And for your added convenience ...

    ... all your confidential medical data will be slightly anonymised and sold to advertisers.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not just BT

    Lorenzo is a pile of crap. CSC are about the level as BT when it comes to competence and on that subject, I also question the government's (current and past) competency in selecting service providers as selections always seem to be based on size rather than quality. Or is it the amount of grease on certain key personnel palms? (Not so unbelievable in the light of recent news regarding MPs' expenses).

  4. Bug
    Thumb Down


    So does this mean that Phorm gets a sneaky access to all our medical details then.

  5. Anonymous Coward

    Can't say as I'm surprised

    But seeing as BT Alliance use a different version of Cerner Millennium than Fujitsu I'd love to see how this pans out...

    *feels suddenly glad to live Oop North*

    *dons flat cap and takes whippet out for walk*

  6. B3vil

    Death (to) profiling

    Phorm have noticed that the vital signs of your loved one are quickly taking a turn for the worse. We are sure you would be interested in the following services, tailored specifically to their needs and yours.

    Funerals R Us

    XxxXtrawide Coffins

    Necrophiliacs United

    If you wish to opt out of this service please visit our offices 1km south of the North Pole between the hours of 1:01pm and 1:02pm on the 32nd of December.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    Can BT be trusted?

    But can we trust BT with this sensitive personal information?

    They have a record of covert activity as an ISP, misleading customers and press, and engaging unauthorised interception of private internet communications. They are currently under investigation by CPS for alleged offences under RIPA, DPA, PECR, and MCA. The ICO has indicated that ther 2006 and 2007 trials of Phorm's Webwise/PageSense technology without customr consent were "in probable breach" of DPA.

    They also do not have a very good record in terms of competence, given the leaks from their customer forums over the last twelve months, and their inability to manage secure cookies with customer online billing accounts.

    And we are trusting these guys with sensitive health data, at the same time as they are planning to intercept the internet traffic of their broadband customers?

    I would refer you to the customer forum pages where all this was discussed but nice trustworthy BT removed it all from public view in line with their declared policy of transparency - "you can see right through them".

    Why not just save time, and invite some Chinese or Russian hackers directly to take the contract?

  8. Anonymous Coward

    Oh joy

    Given the total balls-up they've made of the patient appointment systems in Barnet & Chase Farm Hospital and Barnet PCT, I think I'll buy shares in BUPA.

  9. Anonymous Coward

    Acknowledging the end of joined up records?

    While I have a lot of sympathy for the hospital trusts which have already installed Millennium, what has happened to the strategic aspects?

    After all, the aim of the NPfIT was to provide interoperable single records - or at any rate, Detailed Care Records - defined as single records used by all the organisations providing care in a locality, and enabling communication of records between general practice, community and Trusts to prevent duplication and increase patient safety.

    The ability to share information locally - with explicit patient consent - is needed to support new ways of working, and Liverpool is an example of this - completely outside either CfH or the LSP, CSC: it uses EMIS Web and is driven and developed by local needs and initiatives.

    The objectives of sharing appropriate parts of records with explicit patient consent can be put into practice without single shared records or even Detailed Care Records.

    The Lorenzo Regional Care concept - where all organisations use Lorenzo as their record of prime entry - doesn't seem to have been adopted in London or Southern, so it looks as though it is only in NME that you run the risk of having your records in a single shared record - currently TPP SystmOne and soon, if CSC is to be believed, Lorenzo - with all the problems that introduces such as data quality (very important: known case of podiatrist entering diabetes - and no-one else able to remove it even though demonstrably false) and medication management, let alone confidentiality for the patient.

    Now if you have Lorenzo - not planned to interoperate with anyone else or TPP - with a reputation of lack of interest in any form of interoperability - in NME, Millennium which does not, AFAIAA, have facilities or plans for interoperability with any primary care records - in London and 8 Trusts in Southern, where does that leave the grand strategy?

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022