|
Just let people log in to the NHS with their Facebooks, and like I dunno, Instagram their cellphone pictures of their X-rays or selfies of their weird genital rashes. Facebook didn't exist a few years ago and look at it now, all this would be sorted out in no time. 99 problems and an overabundance of IT knowledge ain't one of them.
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 13:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 03:45 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/MirrorPolitics/status/863266215086739456
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 13:04
|
|
|
This is quite a frontpage from the Heil: No idea who the tubby bloke in the t-shirt is supposed to be, though. LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 13:13 on May 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 13:04
|
|
|
Meanwhile Gordon Brown and Tom Watson are giving speeches that are basically 'we're going to lose'. I'm not sure that's going to motivate the base, and I'm not entirely sure that's the intention.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It's not that you can't pay them enough, it's that the proposal is for the NHS to start a software infrastructure company from scratch. There is a flaw with that plan. Electronic healthcare record systems don't have decades of iteration, the majority of them haven't even been around that long. The ones that have were poo poo for most of that time which is why nobody used them. The US made it a legal requirement a few years ago and since then there has been an explosion of new systems, and yes in many cases they have been written more or less from scratch in a few years. The market was essentially untapped so it was ideal for a new developer to step in since they would have an easy time finding a buyer. The NHS is different in that designing a health record system for the US market has to be underpinned by the billing process at every stage. Different companies bill in different ways so your software has to account for as many of them as possible. That means buying an off the shelf product from the US almost certainly isn't going to work (there are several different ones in use around the NHS but as far as I'm aware there's a separation between the basic records held nationally, and the more detailed day-to-day systems which are run independently). On the other hand, having the NHS as a client would be enough to build an entire business around in the first place anyway. And that's more or less the way it ought to work - set up a government funded company/organisation with a specific goal of developing software needed for the NHS, and as a secondary goal sell and support the same software abroad to offset some of the investment costs. The first thing they would do is hire a bunch of experienced developers who have worked on US systems and then start on an NHS based one - the US market is approaching saturation point now and the different companies are going to start swallowing each other up and that means a lot of talented people are looking for job security right now. The timing is almost too good in fact. Of course any success would be undermined by the Tories selling off any such company as soon they got their hands on it.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:No idea who the tubby bloke in the t-shirt is supposed to be, though. He was on BBC News this morning. He was literally shaved and canulla'd (sp?) ready for a heart operation that had to be cancelled.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 13:18
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/RyvitaVonTeese/status/863361804034027520
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
jabby posted:So we can't hire people to design a system for the NHS because we can't pay them enough, but we can pay an outside company to do it who will take that money, skim off huge profits and then pay their employees to design a system for the NHS. It isn't just the money. It is the organisation, the time, the knowledge and the effort needed to do something like designing your own large healthcare IT system, and then maintaining it long term. You also need to cultivate the feeding system, such as the experts working on the system, so that it can continue to exist, which adds further complexity. Those are big parts of the reason we contract it out. It isn't all about cutting costs - it is that it is easier to pay other people to do that who already have those qualities and abilities. You can hate markets, but it is true that the relationship between tech companies and educational institutions already cultivates a system of supply and demand which causes those experts to exist. There is a significant difference between contracting out something like individual parts of healthcare provision, and contracting out major parts of the infrastructure. One is a simple cost cutting measure to weaken the system, the other is a necessary practice because the level of complexity involved with doing it yourself is so extreme.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 13:23
|
|
|
Praseodymi posted:Have we talked about this loving disgusting piece from the Scum? https://twitter.com/therubykid/status/863331572010897408 Wow. Just. gently caress. Amazing. They're only considering British deaths as worthy of counting. Amazing. Hey guys, I guess Blair is fine, only 178 people died in the Iraq War!!!
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It's not that you can't pay them enough, it's that the proposal is for the NHS to start a software infrastructure company from scratch. There is a flaw with that plan. Most private companies don't make their own IT infrastructure. Most private companies also don't have 1.7 million employees, a budget measured in the tens of billions, or a customer base identical to the population of the country. The government is perfectly capable of setting up a company specifically to develop software for the NHS, and as other people said the costs could even be offset by selling/supporting that software to third parties.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 13:27
|
|
|
Another Person posted:It isn't just the money. It is the organisation, the time, the knowledge and the effort needed to do something like designing your own large healthcare IT system, and then maintaining it long term. You also need to cultivate the feeding system, such as the experts working on the system, so that it can continue to exist, which adds further complexity. Those are big parts of the reason we contract it out. It isn't all about cutting costs - it is that it is easier to pay other people to do that who already have those qualities and abilities. You can hate markets, but it is true that the relationship between tech companies and educational institutions already cultivates a system of supply and demand which causes those experts to exist. Which is why a proper functioning government department is the answer, at worst the only difference is 'skip tendering process, is easier to amend strategic objectives 3 years down the line as their SLA is to do what the government needs them to do' and at best it's a selfsustaining centre for skills and training accessible by state services with minimal effort once the need for a new system or improvement has been seen while completely removing all the problems about individual projects not lining up with each other.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
jabby posted:Most private companies don't make their own IT infrastructure. Most private companies also don't have 1.7 million employees, a budget measured in the tens of billions, or a customer base identical to the population of the country. Your plan is to replace a functioning market with a state monopoly. This will go wrong for the reason it always goes wrong. The problem exists at the commissioning level, not the delivery level. Changing the delivery mechanism doesn't help, what needs to change is the government needs to get a grip on what it actually needs from IT procurement.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
Walton Simons posted:Looking at the comments on news websites it's amazing how 'sack the pen-pushers, hire doctors and nurses!' has become 'why wasn't more spent on IT?'. I even saw one upvoted comment saying that the NHS should have run a paper system alongside the computer-based one just in case, I can't imagine the howling about NHS inefficiency if that actually happened.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 13:47
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Your plan is to replace a functioning market with a state monopoly. Yeah this is totally what a functioning market looks like
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Yeah this is totally what a functioning market looks like There's a range of competing products at decent prices that all work. That market is working just fine here. The problem is the state deciding not to pay what it costs for the solution it wants.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Your plan is to replace a functioning market with a state monopoly. This will go wrong for the reason it always goes wrong. youre talking poo poo and its clear youre talking poo poo because anyone whos ever checked the data knows "markets" are worse than state functions
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Yeah this is totally what a functioning market looks like You can't operate the NHS as some kind of state monopoly, it would never work. Just look the entire history of the NHS, the key feature is privatisation.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Wow. Just. gently caress. Amazing. They're only considering British deaths as worthy of counting. Amazing. There is an unwritten rule that the UK Prime Minister must have the mark of Khorne.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:There was an emergency paper system in the 999 center I contracted for last year, a whole big set of instructions for if the systems go down which the operators have to learn. All Trusts do/should(gulp), that's what they resorted to yesterday. Doing both as everyday routine is a bad idea. Alchenar posted:The problem exists at the commissioning level, not the delivery level. Changing the delivery mechanism doesn't help, what needs to change is the government needs to get a grip on what it actually needs from IT procurement. Okay but what if the sheer scale of the work makes the initial contracting process practically impossible to get right at the start? Alterations of the contract later on are possible but are usually incredibly expensive to get the contractor to agree to do it before additional costs of doing whatever extra they're being asked to do; why not have that conversation under the umbrella of state bodies negotiating with each other rather than a private contractor using it as an opportunity to extract even more money?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:There's a range of competing products at decent prices that all work. There's a range of products none of which are tailored to the needs of the NHS and so all of which result in bodged fixes to try and make them work.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 13:54
|
|
|
Civil service is genrally good at this stuff so long as people leave them the gently caress alone to do it.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:There's a range of competing products at decent prices that all work. The state has put billions into NHS IT in the last 15 years.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
jabby posted:There's a range of products none of which are tailored to the needs of the NHS and so all of which result in bodged fixes to try and make them work. No because we know there literally was a fix and it would have cost £5.5m. A hell of a lot cheaper than setting up your own IT company.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
namesake posted:All Trusts do/should(gulp), that's what they resorted to yesterday. Doing both as everyday routine is a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
Jeremy Hunt is hiding and Amber Rudd is responding to interview requests with 'since parliament was dissolved I am not currently an MP'. Lovely stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
Ohh FFS. Just found out my area is one where the Lib Dems and Greens have colluded, and despite the Lib Dem's being second in every election bar 2015 they aren't going to stand in the 2017 election. It makes no sense and completely blows my intention to tactically vote Lib Dem.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
ukle posted:Ohh FFS. Just found out my area is one where the Lib Dems and Greens have colluded, and despite the Lib Dem's being second in every election bar 2015 they aren't going to stand in the 2017 election. It makes no sense and completely blows my intention to tactically vote Lib Dem. Er, vote Green then? That said, you should probably vote Labour anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
ukle posted:Ohh FFS. Just found out my area is one where the Lib Dems and Greens have colluded, and despite the Lib Dem's being second in every election bar 2015 they aren't going to stand in the 2017 election. It makes no sense and completely blows my intention to tactically vote Lib Dem. Oh no you have to vote for a better party
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 14:01
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:No because we know there literally was a fix and it would have cost £5.5m. A fix for this individual issue. This is so obviously a nonsense comparison you can't be making it honestly
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:There's a range of competing products at decent prices that all work. There are a range of products designed with billing as their top priority which are generally aimed at smaller institutions than the NHS and none of them are cheap. It would be less expensive for the state to commission its own solution for the NHS and then sell it on, and the result would work better for the NHS to boot. Alchenar posted:No because we know there literally was a fix and it would have cost £5.5m. You haven't been reading, because £5.5m was the cost for an extra year of security updates to Windows XP from Microsoft. That is completely different to purchasing a full EHR software package.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
ukle posted:Ohh FFS. Just found out my area is one where the Lib Dems and Greens have colluded, and despite the Lib Dem's being second in every election bar 2015 they aren't going to stand in the 2017 election. It makes no sense and completely blows my intention to tactically vote Lib Dem. Vote tactically for Labour or the Greens then. The Lib Dems have totally failed to improve their position since 2015. If they weren't second party then they've likely got zero chance.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Wow. Just. gently caress. Amazing. They're only considering British deaths as worthy of counting. Amazing. It gets more amazing the more you think about it. According to The Sun, Corbyn's refusal to back a war becomes more egregious the more troops were killed; the bloodier a war, the more everyone should support ARE BOYS and keep fighting. While a sane person would look at that graphic and see that the only war Corbyn has supported (not counting the vicious, tumultuous hellscape conflict that was...the Mediterranean Refugee Crisis) was the one where no British servicepeople died. Which seems like excellent judgement; all the more so if you seem to believe that they're the only lives worth saving. It's so UKPolitics2017.jpg it would be hilarious if it wasn't real.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
the NHS should develop their own desktop OS instead of just upgrading Windows?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 14:08
|
|
|
Praseodymi posted:Have we talked about this loving disgusting piece from the Scum? https://twitter.com/therubykid/status/863331572010897408 Didn't Corbyn back The Troubles as well? 
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
BBC news just went to Jeremy Corbyn's comment on the cyber attacks. They played the part where he condemned the attackers and cut away the second before he launched an attack on Hunt and the government for letting it happen. gently caress's sake.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
namesake posted:All Trusts do/should(gulp), that's what they resorted to yesterday. Doing both as everyday routine is a bad idea. Yeah, that's what I saw suggested, not just an emergency contingency.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
Scikar posted:You haven't been reading, because £5.5m was the cost for an extra year of security updates to Windows XP from Microsoft. That is completely different to purchasing a full EHR software package.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
Scikar posted:There are a range of products designed with billing as their top priority To hammer this home: in Cerner (one of th big American companys had a big cluster of Trusts use) has a nice fancy core appointment scheduling app called "Revenue Cycle"! The UK tends to use the old core appointment booking app, because all the new bells and whistles in Revenue Cycle are, shock horror, about billing. Give me a full state made NHS system that's actually built for the NHS from the ground up.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
Cerv posted:the NHS should develop their own desktop OS instead of just upgrading Windows? No, they should develop their own EHR system (or at least, the state should) so that they aren't reliant on a 15 year desktop OS to run their outdated software package. Fun fact: the reason XP is still hanging around is because you have poo poo like X-Ray machines that are computer controlled, the software to operate them only works on XP, and the company that produced it went bust years ago. But the source code is proprietary so you can't fix it to work with a modern OS yourself and you have to replace the entire machine instead, even though all of the hardware is perfectly fine and you budgeted the costs for its expected 15 year lifespan. If that software is produced by the state, or commissioned by the state with a license that includes full rights to the source code, this problem doesn't happen.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 03:45 |
|
|
jabby posted:They're also persisting with the plan of putting up basic rate income tax by a penny, completely disregarding the manifesto commitment to only raise taxes on the rich. but if they dropped the income tax plan on the UK party's say so, that'd take them back to the "branch office of London" criticism.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 14:13
|
|