copycat Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 In the IOM Examiner page 2 "Hospital IT needs £7.5 million" wtf!!! The company that supports the existing hospital iT system is ceasing operation - so the hospital wants a new system thats all singing and dancing and linked up - so what do you think will happen? IMO they will get a new system in that will cost twice as much 'cos the new IT co will realise its got the govt by the short hairs - then it'll go bust - and by then then Govt will need to find £100million to fund another replavcement system. What should they do to protect the public purse from IT costs being hijacked and what some might say is "extortion"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Kerr Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 In the IOM Examiner page 2 "Hospital IT needs £7.5 million" wtf!!!The company that supports the existing hospital iT system is ceasing operation - so the hospital wants a new system thats all singing and dancing and linked up - so what do you think will happen? IMO they will get a new system in that will cost twice as much 'cos the new IT co will realise its got the govt by the short hairs - then it'll go bust - and by then then Govt will need to find £100million to fund another replavcement system. What should they do to protect the public purse from IT costs being hijacked and what some might say is "extortion"? There's nothing like making a story up on the basis of no evidence at all. Do you have any basis for your turning £7.5m into £100m story. It sounds a bit like fishes and loaves to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 In the IOM Examiner page 2 "Hospital IT needs £7.5 million" wtf!!!The company that supports the existing hospital iT system is ceasing operation - so the hospital wants a new system thats all singing and dancing and linked up - so what do you think will happen? IMO they will get a new system in that will cost twice as much 'cos the new IT co will realise its got the govt by the short hairs - then it'll go bust - and by then then Govt will need to find £100million to fund another replavcement system. What should they do to protect the public purse from IT costs being hijacked and what some might say is "extortion"? And what do you propose as an alternative? The hostpital continue to operate on an unsupported system putting lives at risk? You like to bleat, why not come up with a solution or two? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silentbob Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 Sorry, but I have seen first hand the Hospital's disjointed IT systems Unix/mainframe based pathology/medical records systems and Windows based infrastructure. If they can consolidate their entire operation into a single, supportable system which gives the right people access to the right information faster then, best of luck to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wideload Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 if the hospitals systems are so disjointed then whos fault is that? surely they had enough time & money to get it right the first time round? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted March 20, 2007 Share Posted March 20, 2007 Maybe we should spent money on fixing the problem rather than wasting it on apportioning blame. Perhaps if we spent less on ultimately pointless Tynwald select committee there would be more money to spend on worthwhile things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Hear, hear, Mojo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexMcC Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 I have also seen the system, it is a mess, but I'm sure silentbob is more qualified then me to say it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 It's a typical copycat thread; 7.5 = 100 What can we do? We can start by saying 'bollocks' to pathetic threads like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 if the hospitals systems are so disjointed then whos fault is that? surely they had enough time & money to get it right the first time round? Don't know much about the hospital's history, but if it followed the same pattern as a typical organisation, you'd tend to get systems that grow organically as the organisation offers more services and computerises previously manual processes. Then one day, someone realises that the whole system is just costing more and more to operate and maintain and you get a total overhaul with a new integrated system coming in. There's definetly lots of benefits to be achieved by consolidating this way, and most organisations I've worked in have gone through the pain and are reaping long-term benefits through this sort of strategy. -------------------- Tech Blog - Personal Blog - Hobby Blog - Ask Owen - Wife's Blog - Baby Son's Blog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 IT integration is undoubtedly a good thing for long-term cost and customer service, although I pray that we aren't sold on some niche system with excessive customisation. We don't want to go the way of the UK NHS IT programme, which has had many well-documented overruns and seems to be hopelessly overengineered. Certainly for most desktops Linux + Open Office + Firefox should do the job at a tiny fraction of the cost of Windows, but I wouldn't bet against them being lured into Microsoft products. Ubuntu seems a good choice, given their Isle of Man link. Just out of interest, why wasn't the upgrade carried out in conjunction with the move to the new hospital? And is up-to-date networking gear (wired (ethernet and fibre) and wireless) installed in the building, or will all that have to be upgraded too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 Certainly for most desktops Linux + Open Office + Firefox should do the job at a tiny fraction of the cost of Windows, but I wouldn't bet against them being lured into Microsoft products. Ubuntu seems a good choice, given their Isle of Man link. It's a nice idea, but have you tried it in practice? Someone shows up with a powerpoint presentation or some Excel macro's and it all goes to shit. Just out of interest, why wasn't the upgrade carried out in conjunction with the move to the new hospital? And is up-to-date networking gear (wired (ethernet and fibre) and wireless) installed in the building, or will all that have to be upgraded too? Last think you'd want to do in all that disruption is upgrade your administration systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silentbob Posted March 21, 2007 Share Posted March 21, 2007 The network infrastructure is in place, and should not need upgrading. The majority of these monies will be spent on programming and development to drag all their legacy systems into a centralized system (I am doing a lot of assumption here ofc) and also new server hardware to run aforementioned systems on. The IT systems that were in place had to be transferred (to a degree) over to the new hospital, having a new hospital AND a completely new system would have rendered the place unusable until staff were up to speed. I think they have done the right thing in letting the place bed in, then look at upgrading systems in a staggered fashion to minimize the negative impact. In short, Slim is right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 The network infrastructure is in place, and should not need upgrading. The majority of these monies will be spent on programming and development to drag all their legacy systems into a centralized system (I am doing a lot of assumption here ofc) and also new server hardware to run aforementioned systems on. As long as they had planned ahead by putting required infrastructure in place, I take the point that there are benefits to staging software upgrades. Certainly for most desktops Linux + Open Office + Firefox should do the job at a tiny fraction of the cost of Windows, but I wouldn't bet against them being lured into Microsoft products. Ubuntu seems a good choice, given their Isle of Man link. It's a nice idea, but have you tried it in practice? Someone shows up with a powerpoint presentation or some Excel macro's and it all goes to shit. Yes, I've worked in organizations with Linux build desktops. Open Office can deal with existing formats quite nicely and is improving all the time. Also bear in mind that Microsoft is moving towards open standards for Office documents in Office 2007. For what the vast majority of users actually do with productivity suites, Open Office is entirely fit for purpose: they won't touch the additional functionality available in MS Office. Applying web frontends as part of the upgrade would make all of the core apps platform-independent. I expect most of them involve pulling up or entering data - both entirely within the capabilities of web apps. I can conceive of some healthcare users needing specialised apps not available on Linux. For example, when I had my eyes lasered they used a surface scanner that fed results to Windows software. However, I'd rather they maintained a Windows build for use as the exception, rather than the rule and save us all a fortune on licensing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Yes, I've worked in organizations with Linux build desktops. Open Office can deal with existing formats quite nicely and is improving all the time. Also bear in mind that Microsoft is moving towards open standards for Office documents in Office 2007. For what the vast majority of users actually do with productivity suites, Open Office is entirely fit for purpose: they won't touch the additional functionality available in MS Office. Oh I agree, most users will be fine with Open Office, I use it myself at home and actually prefer it to MS office generally because the stuff I need isn't hidden amongst the stuff I dont. It's those few that don't just use the standard features though, and the powerpoint and scripting compatability is a big deal for those of us who've automated quite a lot with office over the years. Plus the database doesn't even scratch Access's abilities. Applying web frontends as part of the upgrade would make all of the core apps platform-independent. I expect most of them involve pulling up or entering data - both entirely within the capabilities of web apps. I can conceive of some healthcare users needing specialised apps not available on Linux. For example, when I had my eyes lasered they used a surface scanner that fed results to Windows software. However, I'd rather they maintained a Windows build for use as the exception, rather than the rule and save us all a fortune on licensing. Yep, you're probably right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.