Report comment

I share your frustration. However, like the first commenter, I would throw a few more thoughts your way.

The first is that Information and IT are not the same thing. To characterture: someone coming up the ranks of "Information" is more likely to understand what data is really needed, what constitutes "good enough" data and how it is best presented. Whilst someone with an IT background will have more experience in managing a large budget / service and delivering big projects. The NHS currently values the latter a lot more than the former. Which is why you'll almost always find the most senior person in IT/Information in an organisation will be from an IT background. If you want better information then you need to value Information at least as much as IT, and recognise the difference.

Secondly. Senior managers, Execs and clinicians need to be grown up about the data and information they get. They need to understand and be open to adult conversations about evidence based on imperfect data. The main reason you come across the mind-set of "the data isn't perfect so we can't give you anything" is that too often when someone presents something based on imperfect data they are promptly ripped apart for that fact. (With a vigour directly proportional to the degree to which it tells them something unwelcome.) That's got to change. The concept of 'fit for purpose' needs to be understood and accepted.

Thirdly, be less prescriptive about the solutions and more descriptive about the problems. Don't say here's a new clinical system, you all have to use it by date X. Say here's the standards we want any clinical system to follow, you've got X time to be compliant. CfH were bad for this. The IC considerably better.