Welcome Guest | Login | Register | Why Register?
HOME | CONTACT | NEWS | DOCUMENT LIBRARY | FEATURES | COMMENT & ANALYSIS | EVENTS | RESEARCH REPORTS | CASE STUDIES | FORUMS

Worthing says Cerner's functionality 'inferior'

28 May 2008

The chief executive of Worthing and Southlands Hospitals NHS Trust has said the Cerner Millennium care records system is still suffering from ‘inferior functionality’, leading to ‘significant level of discontent among clinicians’.

Attempts to install manual and electronic workarounds – where possible – have already cost over £2m of extra spending, with a further £1m now required by the trust. The Cerner CRS system was provided by Fujitsu as part of the £12.7 billion NHS IT programme.

Workarounds have had to be installed for nurse handover reports, establishing a separate patient database for A&E and a data warehouse to allow statutory reporting.

As a result, Worthing - which had been hailed by Fujitsu as a flagship site - has already had to borrow £2m from West Sussex PCT to cover ‘extra expenditure incurred as a result of the Cerner implementation’, on extra staff and software, straining the relationship with its main customer.

Despite these extra investments Worthing’s chief executive has said the trust is “still unable to satisfactorily capture, record and bill all activity”, which was “contributing to contractual difficulties” with the PCT.

On 1 May, Stephen Cass, chief executive at Worthing, wrote to Candy Morris, chief executive of the South East Coast Strategic Health Authority, asking for support “in order to mitigate the predicted high financial costs arising directly from this deployment.”

He bluntly tells Morris: “It is evident that the trust continues to experience significant difficulties due to inferior functionality and ongoing usability issues of the system which has led to a significant level of discontent amongst clinicians and users of the system.”

With the problems of Cerner Millennium unresolved, the trust says it will need an extra £1m in the coming year to hire 42 new administrative staff to check and manually process data meant to have been handled by the Fujitsu provided computer system.

Cass told Morris: “The [trust] estimates the ongoing need for an additional 42 WTE [whole time equivalent] staff, which equates to a financial cost in the region of circa £1m in excess of the previous patient administration system.”

The trust has now prepared a detailed impact assessment for 2008/09, which identifies 18 different issues to do with the Fujitsu provided CRS system.

Problems with the system include: staff being unable to effectively locate and track patients or case notes, no facility to record A&E procedures or provide fit for purpose discharge summaries, no capability to track and monitor 18-week waits, serious problems with correspondence, no provision for printing and annotating patient lists, and no ability to print off specimen labels.

Cass added that whilst Fujitsu’s year-long contract re-set has been underway, the trust has yet to receive necessary fixes and upgrades, including Choose and Book and 18-week tracking.

In his letter to Morris Cass says: “The lack of clarity regarding timescales for the deployment of future releases, which will address existing limitations such as tracking the 18-week pathway, the need to move to direct booking and the provision of an effective order communications solution, is of particular concern.

“This position has been exacerbated by the lack of progress in delivering local enhancements to the system as envisaged by NLOP, and the continuing delays surrounding the provision of fixes/upgrades to improve the usability of the system.”

Connecting for Health (CfH) says it is working with the trust to fix problems. A spokesperson told EHI: “WASH is receiving planned upgrades and maintenance fixes in line with agreed plans. Many of the concerns raised during early stages of implementation have now been resolved and there is a robust escalation process in place for trusts to raise issues unable to be resolved at a local level.

On the extra unplanned costs incurred by the trust the spokesperson said: “Deployment plans have always had an element of both central and local funding for implementation.”

A Fujitsu spokesperson added: “Fujitsu Services endeavours to work with NHS CfH to deal with the evolving needs of all trusts as well as those specific to Worthing.”

Two months ago Morris wrote to local MP, Peter Bottomley two months ago, saying functionality ‘deficiencies’ have resulted in CfH asking Fujitsu to explain why implementation dates continue to slip for trusts in the South.

“You may be aware that NHS Connecting for Health with the support of the three SHA chief executives in the South of England has escalated the issue with Fujitsu in relation to their failure to deliver key implementation milestones in their work for the Southern Programme for IT. Negotiations continue, and there are no rose-tinted glasses. We await Fujitsu’s remediation plan,” she told the MP at the time.

Bottomley challenged health minister, Ben Bradshaw, on this issue and last week, Bradshaw published a written response, stating: “We are aware of the concerns expressed by clinicians at Worthing and Southlands NHS Trust about the Cerner IT system that has been installed at that trust.

The minister said CfH boss Gordon Hextall will now be visiting the trust “I have arranged for the department's director of informatics and interim director of programme and systems delivery to visit Worthing hospital at the earliest opportunity to address with clinicians locally the concerns that have been raised by the honourable member. I will also write to him shortly to explain the plans that are in place to further develop and improve the Cerner Millennium product, its functionality, and its ease of use.”

The problems and visits from Department of Health senior officials echo the problems at Milton Keynes last year, where CfH’s then chief executive, Richard Granger, and the NHS chief executive, Sir David Nicholson went to address disgruntled users of Cerner and pledged support in making the system more usable.

Joe Fernandez

© 2008 E-HEALTH-MEDIA LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

1

the tesco's approach

28 May 08 17:05

Will Gordon be helping to reduce the £2M extra cost that CFH have lumbered this poor Trust with by doing a bit of data entry while he is on his visit?

Every little helps, as they say


2

Propbably all due to being on RC0 or RC1 when RC2 is far more advanced and functional...

admin@pixelspotlight.com

28 May 08 18:44

The amount of time it has taken to get from RC0 to RC1 and places are still not on RC2 is amazing to me. RC2 has been developed for approximately 2 years and is far superior in functionality. What is the hold up? Why are they bothering going live with one to two releases old code?


3

Interesting.....

nhstruth@gmail.com

28 May 08 20:01

Oh my. Mr Cass said a lot didn't he? Interesting that he didn't share with you his directive to his staff not to use the system if they didn't like it. Hmm. I wonder how that slipped his mind?


4

Passing the buck?

29 May 08 09:35

I do find it strange that CfH/Southern NLOP were happy to provide, Sussex Health Informatics Service were happy to implement, and the WASH Trust Board were happy to accept implementation of a product which appears not to have been, and still appears not to be now fit for the purpose for which it is intended. What happened to due diligence - in all the organisations involved? Where was the risk analysis of taking Millennium? Didn't it identify that if the implementation wasn't successful, then an additional large sum would be necessary to fill the gaps? Wasn't this built into the Business Plan?

(Post edited by EHI)


5

NHS IT Worthing

bottomleyp@parliament.uk

29 May 08 17:26

I believe Worthing hospital tried to put off Cerner and succeeded in delay.

Can anyone explain why functionality achieved at Homerton was not served on a plate to Worthing?


6

the reason why

29 May 08 18:25

Yes, I can explain why Worthing didn't get the Homerton solution. Because CFH chose not to buy the Homerton solution. QED


7

Specimen labels?

29 May 08 22:55

If they thought they were going to get labels for patient specimens from a PAS system it demonstrates a dangerous lack of knowledge about the system they were taking. Every laboratory scientist knows that labels for specimens come from the laboratory system or from the order communications system.

Key to to a good IT system deployment is making sure the customer knows what they are getting, obviously this did not happen at Worthing and Southlands. Did they not test the software before going live?


8

safety and efficacy?

cpoee1@yahoo.com

30 May 08 04:14

I appreciate the candid and detailed news. It seems, my lads, that you have imported the headaches of your friends in the US. If the news was as candid and detailed in the US, the UK NHS would not have been hoodwinked. The key to choosing the right system is in knowing its safety and efficacy.

You lads at Newcastle should keep in mind the relations of UPMC and Cerner.

cepi oui


9

Hindsight is great

30 May 08 10:13

Of course the problem was that whilst buying the Newham and Homerton version as R0, we didn't continue to link to that system and keep pace with the changes made, but tried reinventing the wheel, with consequent delays. Cerner have a very good EPR - perhaps PAS and an EPR are incompatible?


10

Specimen Labels - of course they knew

30 May 08 11:33

As a person involved in this deployment I know that it was always made clear that without order communications there would be no specimen labels. The 'problems' listed in the atricle clearly demonstrate that Mr Cass hasn't got a clue. The Trust's data problems are all down to the inability of the staff to accept the concept of 'real time' data entry. Of course you won't be able to find a patient or a set of notes if the system is not used correctly. It's just another case of blame the system for the failings of the NHS staff.


11

Perhaps...

30 May 08 13:22

The Trust was responsible for training. Perhaps they were too busy ensuring the real time data went through the same time warps as the prior system.


12

Specimen Management Training

03 Jun 08 14:41

This trust received Specimen Management training from Cerner. No wonder they thought they would get Specimen labels!


13

Worthing is right

cpoee1@yahoo.com

03 Jun 08 16:35

Dear friends,

There appears to be plenty of blame to go around. The premise is that the IT company referred to by Worthing is in the business to make money, pay its executives, and increase shareholder value. You, as medical lads, are in the business of providing safe and efficient medical care, something that the IT manufacturers do rarely understand. As for comment 12, it sounds as if there was a degree of deception, also not uncommon considering the $millions at stake for the producer of "inferior functionality", according to Worthing and Granger.

Cepi oui


14

Inappropriate posting

03 Jun 08 18:12

I'm not sure the comment about deveption in posting 13 is appropriate.


15

Specimen Management Training

04 Jun 08 09:58

Specimen Management Training is not standard training given to a trust. This trust requested this training. I think that they were unaware that Specimen Management is a separate application chargeable to the trust. Unless this trust is using Order Coms to request bloods (which I don’t think they are) they will not have this function!


16

Good to see the benefits of a central program !

06 Jun 08 09:56

CfH seemed to think there were savings from our central program - no doubt a high-integrity study included these little snagging costs !


17

optional extras

06 Jun 08 19:55

Oh yes. specimen management as an extra option. This was a problem with the whole CfH approach - document management another good example - one document per patient per day within contract, two - you need an expensive add-on that was incapable of delivering full Casenote replacement, but cost more than true EDM.

Order entry - oh you haven't bought our laboratory system, sorry, can't cope with that.

The peril of monopoly suppliers, and believing you have partnerships between public organisations and big private companies.

Wake up HMG.


18

How Many Times...

08 Jun 08 16:35

CFH spent proportionately too much on the other clusters - compare the NE and South populations. This meant they had to buy less in the South but never had the nerve to tell the trusts. How is this Cerner and Fujitsu's fault?


19

Real Time Data Entry

10 Jun 08 12:51

Regarding post 10, I think it's a bit harsh to say "The Trust's data problems are all down to the inability of the staff to accept the concept of 'real time' data entry." My experience of the installations at other sites is that the solution, although useable for the occasional user, struggles to keep up with the speed of the end user who is sat in front of the patient, to the point that some sites have stopped booking followup appointments in the presence of the patient and have reverted to a centralised booking office.

Search
News Features Jobs Newsletters
Top jobs
More
Top jobs

Featured_recruiters
Featured_recruiters