MPs demand rethink on IT as reforms 'sleepwalking to disaster'

Two members of the Commons' public accounts committee have called for the national IT programme to be dismantled and local IT decisions handed back to trusts and GPs.

Conservative Richard Bacon and Liberal Democrat John Pugh have published a paper arguing that most of the national infrastructure being built by the programme should be retained, but that procurements should be made by local NHS organisations to national standards.

The paper was published as the National Audit Office confirmed it will conduct a second review of the programme, as requested by committee chair Edward Leigh in June (news, page 13, 29 June).

Several members of the committee expressed scepticism about the positive tone of the NAO's first review, which praised the programme's management, procurement and contract management, while noting that elements of the care records service are late.

Since the report was published BT, the local service provider for London, has changed its main provider from IDX/GE Healthcare to Cerner. The local service provider for the north-west, Computer Sciences Corporation, has seconded staff to its struggling provider, Isoft, to work on its late-running Lorenzo system (news, page 8, 24 August).

And Mr Bacon and Mr Pugh say the service provider for the north and north-east clusters, Accenture, 'is believed to be negotiating? for its exit from the programme'. They argue Accenture's departure is 'an excellent opportunity to reconsider and reform [the IT programme],' which they claim is 'sleepwalking into disaster'.

Their plan would effectively return the NHS to the position before the programme was launched. The 1998 IT strategy, Information for Health, required the NHS Information Authority to develop national infrastructure and set targets and standards, but left trusts to buy compliant systems.

This approach was abandoned when it became clear the targets would not be met. Slow progress was blamed on long and difficult procurements and on trusts diverting IT money to other priorities.

However, the two MPs argue that 'dozens' of trusts were actually 'on the verge' of signing new IT deals when the programme stopped them.

They also argue that chief executives should be personally responsible for introducing IT and that trusts should get financial incentives to deploy new systems rapidly.

A spokesperson for NHS Connecting for Health, the agency responsible for the national IT programme, said: 'We simply do not agree with the views put forward.

'The procurement approach we have taken has saved a huge amount of money and we are aiming to achieve compatibility across the NHS. Parts of the programme are delayed. However, the claims that the whole programme is behind schedule are inaccurate.'

The programme declined to comment on Accenture's further involvement. The NAO said this week that it was not unusual for it to conduct several reports into long-running projects, but that no decisions had been taken about a further report.