Durham has appointed a specific post to deal with the problem, the holder of
which is currently doing an inventory of GP sites, and getting suppliers to
inform practices of Y2K status.
It would be interesting to discuss the liability of the HAs viz a viz
practices and Trusts. Both the latter are actually private organisations,
with no direct contractual relationship with the HA after the 1990 reforms.
NHS law on liability is pretty byzantine, but provided HAs do not actually
tell practices that their kit is compliant, how would they be liable? I
would have thought the major part of Graham's business will be in suing
practices whose computer systems fail than it will be in suing HAs, but it
would be good to know.
Andrew
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
> Sent: 02 June 1998 07:31
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: HA Computer reimbursement for Yr 2000
>
>
> On Thu, 28 May 1998 19:10:28 GMT [log in to unmask] wrote:
> -
> Graham Ride writes:-
>
> >Another matter which concerns me is that some statements made by clinical
> >system suppliers concerning the PC hardware problem leave a lot to be
> >desired in terms of their understanding of the problem, how to
> check it and
> >how to fix it. HAs ought not to rely upon statements made, they
> will have to
> >check if they wish to be the arbiter of what you require. Does
> an HA take on
> >a liability here if they get it wrong. If so, maybe, for that
> reason they've
> >been advised by lawyers not to do this. If this is the case,
> shouln't they
> >inform GPs not to rely on what they say or imply? Comments, Graham Ross?"
>
> Assuming a claim for Y2KOK status of a system turns out to be
> incorrect,then...
>
> If HA say "We've looked into it and it is Y2KOK" then liability.
> If HA say "Supplier X says the system is Y2KOK" then no
> liability,unless can
> show they had knowledge of potential problems, eg from independent advice
> or information that comes their way, and they do not attempt to check or
> warn.
>
> Frankly from what I now know, I think HAs generally are already heavily
> exposed to liability for med dev/system failure. Not from what
> representations they have made but from what they have not said or done.
> They have failed to tackle manufacturers/suppliers and not only allowed
> funds to drain out of the system but incurred the increased treatment cost
> of Y2K related iatrogenic illness. I could not imagine a worse
> way in which
> to conduct a policy of "dealing" with Y2K.
>
> What, somewhat ironically, will make matters worse for HAs, is that by the
> time 2000 comes round, they will have taken upon themselves,through PCGs,
> greater exposure to liability for primary care level personal injury. Like
> the EURO, these things should be best left until after 2000. If I
> was an HA
> Chairman I would be signing up with Ahmad!
>
> But,lets not be too negative here. I think GPs can play a very
> positive role.
> You could be working with patients jointly in a named patient
> correspondence campaign that clearly fixes liability and accountability
> with suppliers/manufacturers at a stage when there is still time for them
> to do something about it.
>
>
> Graham Ross
>
>
> Graham Ross
> Solicitor
> Ross & Co
> Y2K-LAW
> Liverpool, UK
> +44 (0)151 284 8585
> +44 (0)151 236 6035-fax
> Y2K-LAW:- http://www.y2kalert.com
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|