It strikes me that in addition to all the mistakes like double-claiming of
mileage
expenses and such like, the chief prob with the production of version 3 is
that it is somewhat overdue? Or am I wrong?

Andrew

Dr. Andrew N. Herd MRCGP                               [log in to unmask]
  Family Physician, Medical Adviser to Durham Health Authority
  Lecturer in Primary Care, Durham University
  Medical Editor, Practice Computing

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Rogers <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 14 March 1998 09:36
Subject: Re: Money blown on GP computers


>Dr M Trowell <[log in to unmask]> writes on GP-UK
>(Mark, may I copy this reply to RCGP and NHSCCC?)
>>I caught the end of this story on Radio 4 the other morning.  They said
UKP 19
>>million had been lost trying to set up some GP computing system, which had
now
>>been abandoned.  Anyone know what this was all about?
>
>The article was probably about the National Audit report on the Purchase
>and development of Read Codes.  If that is what they said, then clearly
>they are wrong on a number of counts...
>
>UKP 19 million was not "lost", but "spent" between 1990 and 1997 on the
>running of the Centre (NHSCCC) AND its various projects, including the
>Clinical Terms Project, Nursing Terms Project, Professions Allied to
>Medicine Project, development of version 3, maintenance and development
>of earlier Read Code versions, and mapping Version 3 and Version 2 to
>ICD, OPCS and fundholding terms.  The projects have made use of over
>2,000 clinicians with over 50 Specialty Working Groups to create the
>terms needed to support NHS Information systems.  I chair the GP
>Specialty Working Group.
>
>It is NOT just about a "GP computing system" but a comprehensive set of
>terms to support all areas of patient care in the NHS.  We are world
>leaders here.
>
>It has not been "abandoned".  In fact Read Version 3 is likely, at last,
>to be mandated for the NHS, and about time too.
>
>The report does highlight some major deficiencies which should not be
>minimised,  as I said in a message to the NHSCCC listservers and the
>RCGP informatics group server...
>
>The report criticises:
>
>1. the lack of clear business case for Read Codes before purchase in
>1990
>2. the potential conflict of interests with James Read having a dual
>role as Director of CCC and Chairman of CAMS
>3. serious shortcomings in management at CCC, particularly around the
>use of self-employed status, lack of short-listing and other personnel
>issues
>
>The report does say frequently that these areas have been addressed
>"since [NAO] started their report" and that the new NHS IM&T strategy
>will "reconsider the question of mandating Version 3 of the Codes for
>use in the NHS".  The NHS Executive have commissioned a wider cost-
>benefit analysis by the "Economics and Research Branch of the NHS
>Executive".
>
>The report mentions the international interest in Read Version 3, and
>the evaluation work that has been done.
>
>There clearly are some management questions to answer, but the
>publishing of the report should be a welcome end to the years of
>uncertainty.  Mistakes were made.  It will shortly be the time to look
>to the future...
>
>--
>Jon Rogers
>




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%