- Trust: Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
- Trust: Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
- Supplier: Allscripts
- Supplier: Cerner
Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust are expected to announce the winner of their high profile electronic patient record procurement in mid-April.
The trusts announced an all-US shortlist of suppliers for the key plank of their eHospital project in December.
They are now expected to make a decision on the shortlist by 22 April, in a move that could also indicate how likely new US entrants are to break into the UK market as the National Programme for IT in the NHS winds down.
The shortlist is Allscripts, Cerner and Epic, which were selected from an original 53 responses to the joint procurement, which is being driven primarily by Cambridge University Hospitals.
The large number of responses reflected the nature of the tender, which was split into two lots - for infrastructure and hardware and for software.
The remaining companies for the first lot (hardware and infrastructure) are: Accenture, McKesson and System C bidding as a consortium; BT; and Hewlett Packard.
US software supplier Epic is well regarded in the US, but it has no UK reference sites. However, Epic is known to have heavily invested in the Cambridge procurement and is thought to be well regarded by senior clinicians at the trust.
Allscripts is another major US supplier and Cerner’s inclusion was expected given its involvement with the national programme and wins at big trusts that have gone outside it.
The plan is for a new EPR system and associated infrastructure to be implemented in time for Papworth to move onto the Cambridge Biomedical Campus in 2015.
Both trusts currently run legacy iSoft patient administration systems, with Papworth taking iPM as an 'interim' system from NPfIT, while Cambridge stuck with its existing system.
The trusts also issued a tender last week for project management and IT consultancy services for their eHospital programme.
According to the notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, the trusts are looking to supplement their own clinical and non-clinical staff with up to ten external individuals, who will be seconded to the eHospital project for between six months and two years.
The external team is expected to include two programme directors, a technical architect, a design authority team leader, an applications team leader, a programme office manager and two benefits and business change leads.
The deadline for project management and consultancy tenders is 10 April.
© 2012 EHealth Media.
It is not about cost (unless you are cash strapped) it is about return on investment.John Aird 88 weeks ago
The past 20 years has seen NHS Trusts but all sorts of "EPRs", some eye wateringly expensive to buy and implement, some far on a shoestring budget; cost being mainly relative to the organisation's financial position and tactical issues.
So logically some system have way more capability and potential than others, some have more implementation, migration and integration issues than others. But probably, if successfully implementated all can deliver benefits to the organisation. The operative word being "can". A little while ago EHI undertook a small study in to "benefits realisation", I think the outcome was less than overwhelming, one still hears trusts acclaim the triumph of some PAS functionality, but PAS was 25 years ago, what about EPR triumphs.
From my experience (as an acute IT Dir) Trusts will not benefit from a costly, function rich, EPR unless it is tied in (at Board, Clinician, Nurse, Path, Rad, Pharm, etc, level) to the "potentially radical", certainly dificult, re-engineering of administrative, clinical and operational procedures. This means the programme needs to be owned, funded and driven by the clinical leadership of the organisation, perhaps with the programme itself reporting direct to the Trust Board through the CCIO or Medical Director.
As to the question "is a more expensive system a better investment than a cheaper option?" be that a USA system or something closer to home. Surely that depends on whether the business case has robust benefits-risk analysis linked directly to those who will own and delver the changes. The bottom line is "will every spent on an IT system deliver benefits of equal or more value" and "is this the best way this organisation can spend its investment money?"
If the project stacks up at the cost presented with the system proposed, then then question of whether the system is from the US or some place else is academic, it is not the real issue, "cost / risk / benefits / returns analysis" is.
Note to self...Natterjack 89 weeks ago
Remind development director to create fully-integrated, single database EMR ready for market before those damn'd Yankees take over the whole NHS!
But seriously, there haven't been many other shortlists like this recently. I think they appeal to a certain kind of organization who probably wouldn't go for a local mash-up anyway. There are currently a lot of deals on the go that feature BoB solutions, and some of them will even work! Maybe a bit of diversity is exactly what we need right now...
WAKE UP CALL FOR UK HEALTHCARE IT COMPANIES?ehealthsolutions 89 weeks ago
Surely this shortlist of three fully integrated single database acute EMR's should act as a wake up call to UK Healthcare IT suppliers who seem to have their heads in the sand with their fragmented and difficult to integrate best of breed offerings.
The writing is on the wall. Get your development teams together now and draw up your "integrated EMR" plans before the US takes over all of our healthcare software industry.
Chicken and eggWill Holley 89 weeks ago
The problem is not that there aren't UK suppliers with viable solutions. It is that those companies which are developing them are not on the same scale as those US suppliers. Procurement processes for large systems typically start by filtering out companies which do not meet some scale criteria - X number of deployments and £Xm in turnover for the previous 5 years. As the saying goes, "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM".
The result of this is that it is extremely difficult for small / medium companies with NHS-specific products to get a look in. This is probably the primary blocker to private-sector innovation in UK healthcare IT and the reason that you don't see more UK companies involved in larger EPR-type projects.
Via @EHealthInsider, the £260m ‘Safer Hospitals, Safer Wards’ Tech Fund has been approved by the UK Treasury: http://t.co/IVhGb4d6mO
2 days 8 hours 24 minutes ago