Hi,

I was there and would describe the approach as arrogant incompetence. An
approach that typifies the whole approach to NHS IT and in particular the
early days of the NPfIT.

i.e. those making the decision thought they knew best and that the only
barriers to progress were the incumbent suppliers (i.e. me and those like
me) and the f---- GPs.

Add to this that most of those making the decisions had little experience of
actually using email. I have been using email since 1979 and was amongst a
number who pointed out the issues. But as the problem is not a simple one we
got ignored (they didn't want the real requirement getting in the way of
hitting ill-considered over-simplified targets)

There are  at least five use cases with regard to email.

A personal email that follows you for life not linked to any organisational
or professional affiliation. [log in to unmask] 

A personal email linked to a professional affiliation that once obtained
generally stays with you until you cease to practise. [log in to unmask] 

A personal email address linked to a specific organisational affiliation
[log in to unmask]

A ex-officio email linked to a role [log in to unmask] 

A group email linked to a function [log in to unmask] 

Making this work is challenging as it requires those using email to
understand the problem and know which email to use (both what to send to and
what to send as)

You need a policy about this and about email routing and workflow including
how you handle lapsed email addresses with software to support the policy.

It helps to have a domain or sub-domain at the organisational and/or team
level

NHS mail is not a good fit for all of these use cases, but could be used
better and some responsibility lies with GP practices.

It seems to me we need to act now. Some simple steps.

1) Explain the problem.

2) Allow organisational nhs.net sub-domains for organisational emails (as
nhs.uk did) give people an <org>.nhs.net email as well as a their nhs.net
email

3) Encourage the use of generic emails eg reapeats@<org>.nhs.net including a
subset of standard names common for all practices

4) Open up workflow functions in the nhs.net mail system to admins at
practice level.

5) Educate patients and the workforce to use the right email in the right
context (don't laugh) 

Ewan







  

Ewan Davis - Director - Woodcote Consulting
[log in to unmask] Voice +44(0)207 148 7170 Mobile +44(0) 7774
272724
Read my blog at www.woodcote.co 
Follow me on Twitter   View my profile on Linked In    

Treasurer British Computer Society - Health Informatics Forum 
Member of British Computer Society Primary Health Care Specialist Group
Visit... www.phcsg.org for membership details


-----Original Message-----
From: GP-UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Russell Brown
Sent: 24 May 2011 06:54
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: NHS.Net between jobs?

I tend to think incompetence is more likely than malevolence.

Many/most don't have the wherewithal for the latter.

Russell

Sent from my phone, which may be an iPhone.

On 24 May 2011, at 06:40, Mary Hawking <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Motivation i.e. intentional sabotage, or lack of understanding of the
> business i.e. in this case the NHS?
>
>
> Mary Hawking
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GP-UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adrian Midgley
> Sent: 23 May 2011 22:44
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: NHS.Net between jobs?
>
> On 23 May 2011 21:29, Walter Tim (FALKLAND SURGERY) <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>> All I know is that it definitely DOESN'T work for staff moving between
> practices like out Deputy PM who recently took not only her name and
ongoing
> email with her to her new job as PM elsewhere, but also all her archived
> email messages relating to the practice
>
> An excellent example of why each person needs a personal email address
> and each job needs an email address and what changes is the mapping of
> persons to the latter set.
>
> It was obvious to the people who described the first @nhs.uk email
> system, and the people who described how the new one was to work.
>
> SO what was the motivation of the people who sabotaged it?
>
> --
> Adrian Midgley   http://www.defoam.net/