Google launched its mobile T1 phone with much hoo-ha in October. It operates on the open source Android operating system based on Linux.
The first bug has appeared ... a man was sending a text message to his girlfriend and the message contained the word reboot ... the phone promptly rebooted!
To their credit Google have already issued an automatic bug-fix available tu US users on Tuesday and UK users on Wednesday this week. Blimey ... even I know that issuing the command reboot in a Unix/Linux terminal will result in a ...
In other developments the Australian company IBA Health announced the launch of the first release of its electronic medical record (EMR) software Lorenzo, developed by its subsidiary iSoft, on Wednesday. The NHS Connecting for Health has comissioned this software for keeping patient records throughout most of the north of England (it is purchasing different EMR software for other areas - fully compatible?).
Now I have a few questions here ...
1. IBA Health/iSoft is selling Lorenzo elsewhere so presumably development costs are being shared with other countries.
2. Clearly Lorenzo has to be adaptable to the healthcare systems of different countries.
3. The reply to my FOIA request to the DoH regarding the storage of patient records stated that they would be stored on Solaris Unix servers running Oracle database software. So Lorenzo has to interface with Unix.
4. Are Solaris Unix OS and Oracle database software licenses paid directly to these companies or through DoH contractors (in the case of Lorenzo distributions Computer Sciences Corporation)? If the latter does the DoH know if and how much their contractors are marking-up licensing fees?
4. The DoH contract with Microsoft includes developing (amongst other things?) a Common User Interface (CUI) for Windows workstations - so Lorenzo also has to interface with the Windows CUI. In addition, the EMR software in other areas of England has to interface with Microsoft Windows, Lorenzo, Oracle and Solaris Unix.
5. OGC states that "UK Government will consider obtaining full rights to bespoke software code or customisations of of COTS (Commercial off the Shelf) wherever this provides best value for money." Does the DoH/NHS have full rights to the adapted Lorenzo code and the MS CUI code?
6. Does/will MS Windows Vista, and the projected Windows 7 (issued in beta this week) work with the NHS CUI a customisation of COTS? If
7. The NHS Northwest SHA has been assisting iSoft in trialling their Lorenzo software on a ward or two at the Morecambe (Lancashire) district general hospital. Staff have been maintaining their traditional paper patient records alongside the new Lorenzo system - obviously extra workload to maintain two systems. Who has paid for the extra staff worktime in maintaining both the traditional paper-basd system alongside the iSoft Lorenzo system?
And finally do NHS CfH know what the fuck they are doing? Who is leading who in NHSCfH - the IT people (are there any?) or the managers?
Do these issues warrant a further FOIA request?
Showing posts with label NHS Connecting for Health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NHS Connecting for Health. Show all posts
Friday, November 14, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Three Government Departments
My FOIA request as to the cost of the DoH's contract with Microsoft received a pretty negative response.
I referred in a previous post to the National Audit Office's reports on the National Programme for IT in the NHS i.e. NHS Connecting for Health. In their first report, dated June 2006. the NAO had the following to say about the NHS contract with Microsoft:
"In November 2004 NHS Connecting for Health negotiated renewal of the Department's NHS-wide licence for Microsoft desktop products, which NHS Connecting for Health estimates will save £330 million over nine years with a firm commitment only for the first three years.
Microsoft agreed that the price paid by the NHS would continuously match the lowest charged anywhere in the world. The agreed price for their committed volume was substantially lower than that previously negotiated by the Office of Government Commerce (on a non-commitment basis) on behalf of UK government users. Microsoft also committed to spend £40 million on developing an NHS user interface to help standardise healthcare applications for clinicians, increasing efficiency and reducing the risk of clinical error.
NHS Connecting for Health also considered open source solutions for NHS IT but decided against doing so for two reasons;
The NHS already had an installed base of 500,000 Microsoft environments and users were familiar with Microsoft, and;
Open source solutions are not necessarily cheaper: they may be cheaper to acquire but the total cost of ownership is material when ongoing support, maintenance and training for users are taken into account."
The Office of Government Commerce (OGC) is a department of HM Treasury responsibly for providing advice to all government departments, both national and local, on contracting etc.
In 2002 it produced a report "Open Source Software - Guidance on implementing UK Government Policy". It followed this up with a report "Open Source Software Trials in Government".
It is widely recognised in the IT industry that Unix or "Unix-derivative" operating systems (e.g. Linux) are far more appropriate for servers, particularly webservers. Hence the DoH/NHS will be storing its electronic patient records on Unix (Solaris) servers using Oracle (rather than Microsoft's SQL Server or even the open source MySQL) as its database software.
The desktop environment is more controversial, it being cited that Linux desktops are "insufficiently mature".
The OGC seeked to examine this along with the cost benefits of using open source software (henceforth OSS).
I have some limited experience of deploying Linux desktops to regular users - my employer donated some legacy machines to respectively the national radio station, the national television station, a local primary school and the local municipal council's library.
The machines originally ran Windows NT 4.0. As a government organisation and as Microsoft no longer supports NT 4.0 we had to wipe the hard disks and, after some evaluation, I installed Xubuntu Linux (a light version of Ubuntu Linux suited to machines with small hard disks and little RAM).
The first deployment at the national radio station was a disaster - as soon as I turned my back they had a local technician come in and install a pirated copy of Windows XP.
At the television they took to it immediately - two machines for video editing with firewire ports so they could hook up their DVCAMs and download video clips using the open source KinoDV and edit them using the open source Cinelerra suite. Machines were also provided to the director's secretary and the admin. department - pleased as punch, OpenOffice and Mozilla Firefox no problem at all.
The machine offered to the director of the local primary school couldn't even handle the memory requirements of OpenOffice so I made Abiword the default wordprocessor. Both OpenOffice and Abiword will save documents in a variety of formats including MSWord doc and plain text txt (useful for blogging as Google's Blogger does not like doc embedded headers).
One of the case studies in the OGC report is particularly relevant to this post - that of the Beaumont Hospital in Dublin, Ireland.
Prior to its adoption of OSS it operated a mixed environment of MS Windows and Unix. The hospital had 3000 directly employed staff, and used 22 Linux servers, 14 Windows servers, a Hewlett-Packard HP3000 mainframe for primary clincal applications and a HP Unix system for financial applications. In 2002 there were 1000 workstations.
The hospital was experiencing severe financial problems and started to look at where it could make cost-savings - including in IT.
The IT department came up with the following results and subsequent implementation, between using OSS and proprietary Closed Source Software:
Email, online forms, laboratory procedures and results, patient care records etc - and even X-ray imaging - could all be dealt with by OSS.
There was some resistance to the Linux desktop GUI - Beaumont purchased an e-learning course to deal with this.
GUIs (there are various) have come a long way in the six years since Beaumont made the change. As I related above, our relatively unsophisticated IT users here in Sao Tome have taken to the Ubuntu-family GUIs as ducks to water.
The OGC strongly recommends that government entities should not tie themselves into closed proprietry systems - the NHS have chosen to do just that!
I referred in a previous post to the National Audit Office's reports on the National Programme for IT in the NHS i.e. NHS Connecting for Health. In their first report, dated June 2006. the NAO had the following to say about the NHS contract with Microsoft:
"In November 2004 NHS Connecting for Health negotiated renewal of the Department's NHS-wide licence for Microsoft desktop products, which NHS Connecting for Health estimates will save £330 million over nine years with a firm commitment only for the first three years.
Microsoft agreed that the price paid by the NHS would continuously match the lowest charged anywhere in the world. The agreed price for their committed volume was substantially lower than that previously negotiated by the Office of Government Commerce (on a non-commitment basis) on behalf of UK government users. Microsoft also committed to spend £40 million on developing an NHS user interface to help standardise healthcare applications for clinicians, increasing efficiency and reducing the risk of clinical error.
NHS Connecting for Health also considered open source solutions for NHS IT but decided against doing so for two reasons;
The NHS already had an installed base of 500,000 Microsoft environments and users were familiar with Microsoft, and;
Open source solutions are not necessarily cheaper: they may be cheaper to acquire but the total cost of ownership is material when ongoing support, maintenance and training for users are taken into account."
The Office of Government Commerce (OGC) is a department of HM Treasury responsibly for providing advice to all government departments, both national and local, on contracting etc.
In 2002 it produced a report "Open Source Software - Guidance on implementing UK Government Policy". It followed this up with a report "Open Source Software Trials in Government".
It is widely recognised in the IT industry that Unix or "Unix-derivative" operating systems (e.g. Linux) are far more appropriate for servers, particularly webservers. Hence the DoH/NHS will be storing its electronic patient records on Unix (Solaris) servers using Oracle (rather than Microsoft's SQL Server or even the open source MySQL) as its database software.
The desktop environment is more controversial, it being cited that Linux desktops are "insufficiently mature".
The OGC seeked to examine this along with the cost benefits of using open source software (henceforth OSS).
I have some limited experience of deploying Linux desktops to regular users - my employer donated some legacy machines to respectively the national radio station, the national television station, a local primary school and the local municipal council's library.
The machines originally ran Windows NT 4.0. As a government organisation and as Microsoft no longer supports NT 4.0 we had to wipe the hard disks and, after some evaluation, I installed Xubuntu Linux (a light version of Ubuntu Linux suited to machines with small hard disks and little RAM).
The first deployment at the national radio station was a disaster - as soon as I turned my back they had a local technician come in and install a pirated copy of Windows XP.
At the television they took to it immediately - two machines for video editing with firewire ports so they could hook up their DVCAMs and download video clips using the open source KinoDV and edit them using the open source Cinelerra suite. Machines were also provided to the director's secretary and the admin. department - pleased as punch, OpenOffice and Mozilla Firefox no problem at all.
The machine offered to the director of the local primary school couldn't even handle the memory requirements of OpenOffice so I made Abiword the default wordprocessor. Both OpenOffice and Abiword will save documents in a variety of formats including MSWord doc and plain text txt (useful for blogging as Google's Blogger does not like doc embedded headers).
One of the case studies in the OGC report is particularly relevant to this post - that of the Beaumont Hospital in Dublin, Ireland.
Prior to its adoption of OSS it operated a mixed environment of MS Windows and Unix. The hospital had 3000 directly employed staff, and used 22 Linux servers, 14 Windows servers, a Hewlett-Packard HP3000 mainframe for primary clincal applications and a HP Unix system for financial applications. In 2002 there were 1000 workstations.
The hospital was experiencing severe financial problems and started to look at where it could make cost-savings - including in IT.
The IT department came up with the following results and subsequent implementation, between using OSS and proprietary Closed Source Software:
Email, online forms, laboratory procedures and results, patient care records etc - and even X-ray imaging - could all be dealt with by OSS.
There was some resistance to the Linux desktop GUI - Beaumont purchased an e-learning course to deal with this.
GUIs (there are various) have come a long way in the six years since Beaumont made the change. As I related above, our relatively unsophisticated IT users here in Sao Tome have taken to the Ubuntu-family GUIs as ducks to water.
The OGC strongly recommends that government entities should not tie themselves into closed proprietry systems - the NHS have chosen to do just that!
Thursday, October 23, 2008
NAO and the NHS CfH
The DoH pointed out the opinion of the National Audit Office (NAO) that the Enterprise Wide Agreement between Microsoft and the NHS represented considerable savings to the taxpayer over normal Microsoft rates and those charged by Microsoft to other government departments.
There are two NAO reports evaluating CfH:
1. "The National Programme for IT in the NHS" (ref. HC 1173 June 2006).
2. i) "The National Programme for IT in the NHS: Progress since 2006" (ref. HC 484-I May 2008)
ii) "The National Programme for IT in the NHS: Project Progress Reports" (ref. HC 484-II May 2008).
These are hefty reports and it will take me some time to get through them.
There are two NAO reports evaluating CfH:
1. "The National Programme for IT in the NHS" (ref. HC 1173 June 2006).
2. i) "The National Programme for IT in the NHS: Progress since 2006" (ref. HC 484-I May 2008)
ii) "The National Programme for IT in the NHS: Project Progress Reports" (ref. HC 484-II May 2008).
These are hefty reports and it will take me some time to get through them.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Microsoft and the DoH - Random Thoughts
What do you and I think of this?
Here are some of my random of my thoughts ...
1. It was passed up from the NHS Connecting for Health (CfH) Freedom of Information Officer (FIO) to the Department of Health FIO. Does this say anything about DoH planning and contract awards? Or does this say something about the control of information in the NHS/DoH? The implication is that the contract is between NHS CfH, not the DoH, and Microsoft. However, it may be that the DoH administers the contract on behalf of NHS CfH.
2. The answer to my Question a) raises a number of issues. We are told that under the terms of the Enterprise Wide Agreement (EWA) with Microsoft the government is not allowed to reveal its cost – hardly seems to be in the spirit of open government.
In the first paragraph of this answer we are assured that the National Audit Office (NAO) considers the EWA good value for money compared to contracts between Microsoft and other government departments – this does not say much for these other contracts. Are they also subject to non-revelation of price clauses? Was the NAO's opinion declared publically?
The lack of openness seems to be in direct contradiction of all the government's hype about the free market and open competition.
With twisted logic it is argued that the non-revelation of the contract price results in a cheaper price and thus a lower burden to the taxpayer. What if Microsoft had to compete transparently? What price Freedom of Information?
This rather seems to mirror the European Union's concerns at Microsoft's monopolistic practices. Was the original EWA an open tender? If so, were there any other bidders? What were the terms of the 3-year extension clause? Is Microsoft undercutting, at a loss, potential competitors in order to gain a monopoly in the NHS? By the time this renewal (2007-2010) of the EWA is up, then the NHS will be so intricately tied into Microsoft systems that it will be obliged to renew again and again ... and Microsoft will have the NHS by the short-and-curlies and be able to charge whatever it wants.
3. The answers to my questions b) and c) are somewhat surprising and inadequate. From the Microsoft NHS website I have since learned that Microsoft has an EWA reseller programme divided up by Strategic Health Authorities.
The SHAs are distributed among three companies hence:
Bytes Technology Group:
Clearly, Microsoft's criteria for the selection of resellers and their remuneration are not going to be in the public domain.
I also discover that, as stated in the FIO's reply, that individual NHS entities, can enter “individual contracts” with Microsoft under its Select Licensing programme, without reference to CfH or the DoH. This programme is also administered through Microsoft resellers (generally the same ones as under the EWA) who are administratively organised by SHA. Surely the EWA should cover all NHS Microsoft needs? If CfH/DoH does not know how many of these contracts are held and what they are for, how can it plan for the EWA? How does it know whether the EWA is covering NHS needs?
4. I am somewhat relieved the planned Personal Care Record database will be stored on Solaris Unix servers using an Oracle database rather than Windows servers using MS-SQL database server software. With and by whom is/are the Solaris/Oracle contract/s held? What are the effective dates of such contract(s)?
The DoH FIO's reply seems to raise more questions than it provides answers.
Dear Readers - should I pursue this with a further FOIA request? If so, what should I request? Suggestions please in the comments or by email.
Here are some of my random of my thoughts ...
1. It was passed up from the NHS Connecting for Health (CfH) Freedom of Information Officer (FIO) to the Department of Health FIO. Does this say anything about DoH planning and contract awards? Or does this say something about the control of information in the NHS/DoH? The implication is that the contract is between NHS CfH, not the DoH, and Microsoft. However, it may be that the DoH administers the contract on behalf of NHS CfH.
2. The answer to my Question a) raises a number of issues. We are told that under the terms of the Enterprise Wide Agreement (EWA) with Microsoft the government is not allowed to reveal its cost – hardly seems to be in the spirit of open government.
In the first paragraph of this answer we are assured that the National Audit Office (NAO) considers the EWA good value for money compared to contracts between Microsoft and other government departments – this does not say much for these other contracts. Are they also subject to non-revelation of price clauses? Was the NAO's opinion declared publically?
The lack of openness seems to be in direct contradiction of all the government's hype about the free market and open competition.
With twisted logic it is argued that the non-revelation of the contract price results in a cheaper price and thus a lower burden to the taxpayer. What if Microsoft had to compete transparently? What price Freedom of Information?
This rather seems to mirror the European Union's concerns at Microsoft's monopolistic practices. Was the original EWA an open tender? If so, were there any other bidders? What were the terms of the 3-year extension clause? Is Microsoft undercutting, at a loss, potential competitors in order to gain a monopoly in the NHS? By the time this renewal (2007-2010) of the EWA is up, then the NHS will be so intricately tied into Microsoft systems that it will be obliged to renew again and again ... and Microsoft will have the NHS by the short-and-curlies and be able to charge whatever it wants.
3. The answers to my questions b) and c) are somewhat surprising and inadequate. From the Microsoft NHS website I have since learned that Microsoft has an EWA reseller programme divided up by Strategic Health Authorities.
The SHAs are distributed among three companies hence:
Bytes Technology Group:
North West SHA,
West Midlands SHA,
London SHA
South West, South East and South Central SHAs
Please contact Bytes Technology Group at:
nhs@bytes.co.uk
0208 786 1570
http://www.bytes-publicsector.co.uk/nhs
Computacenter Ltd.
East of England SHA
East Midlands SHA
Or as part of any Arms Length Body
Please contact Computacenter Ltd at:
nhs.microsoft.ea@computacenter.com
0800 055 6661
www.computacenter.com/nhsea
Trustmarque Solutions
North East SHA
Yorkshire andtThe Humber SHA
Department of Health
Please contact Trustmarque Solutions at:
Microsoft.Licensing@Trustmarquesolutions.com
0870 121 0322
www.trustmarquesolutions.com
Clearly, Microsoft's criteria for the selection of resellers and their remuneration are not going to be in the public domain.
I also discover that, as stated in the FIO's reply, that individual NHS entities, can enter “individual contracts” with Microsoft under its Select Licensing programme, without reference to CfH or the DoH. This programme is also administered through Microsoft resellers (generally the same ones as under the EWA) who are administratively organised by SHA. Surely the EWA should cover all NHS Microsoft needs? If CfH/DoH does not know how many of these contracts are held and what they are for, how can it plan for the EWA? How does it know whether the EWA is covering NHS needs?
4. I am somewhat relieved the planned Personal Care Record database will be stored on Solaris Unix servers using an Oracle database rather than Windows servers using MS-SQL database server software. With and by whom is/are the Solaris/Oracle contract/s held? What are the effective dates of such contract(s)?
The DoH FIO's reply seems to raise more questions than it provides answers.
Dear Readers - should I pursue this with a further FOIA request? If so, what should I request? Suggestions please in the comments or by email.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
FOIA
It seems my Freedom of Information request to NHS Connecting for Health has been passed on to the Department of Health as I received this email today ...
Acknowledgement of case DE00000356344 received by the Department of Health.
Acknowledgement of case DE00000356344 received by the Department of Health.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
