MR ANDREW ROLLERSON

7 MARCH 2007

  Q320  Mr Bacon: It is not being immodest to say that.

  Mr Rollerson: No.

  Q321  Mr Bacon: I did not think you were being immodest. Mr Hutchinson also raised in a letter last June—this was at my request, that the letter was sent to the Committee—the number of patient administration systems that were being installed between June and the end of October, just a period of four months. In his letter Mr Hutchinson said that there would be 12 hospitals and he listed them, we have copies of those in our evidence already. So far only four of those have installed the systems and the other eight have not. Why do you think that is? Is it basically because there are serious problems with the software because it is not suitable for the NHS in its present form if it has got things like billing on it, which is an American concept and is not appropriate here, or what? What are the reasons for those delays?

  Mr Rollerson: The initial reason for the delay was the change of supplier, of course.

  Q322  Mr Bacon: You mean when IDX were sacked?

  Mr Rollerson: Yes, when IDX were sacked and they were replaced by Cerner.

  Q323  Mr Bacon: Can you remind the Committee how long IDX were there for before they were sacked?

  Mr Rollerson: I honestly cannot remember, but it was a matter of maybe 12 months, I am not sure. Subsequently, the service system was modified to meet the requirements and Fujitsu has worked with the local NHS trusts through the contracted mechanism to make the changes to the specification to meet the requirement, and the deployment projects have been underway in many trusts for some time.

  Q324  Mr Bacon: But this was a fairly short-term schedule, this was saying at the end of June what they had done by the end of October.

  Mr Rollerson: There is no difference actually in some of the problems faced by this particular programme from many IT programmes; in other words, it is when it comes to things close to implementation, such as data migration, Reporting or printing across networks and things of this sort, that problems tend to emerge which need to be addressed before a go-live can take place. These cannot necessarily be anticipated and I think many of these problems caused the implementation timescales to be drawn out more than one would have hoped, but the momentum for deployments has now risen significantly. I think there are five rather than four deployments under way and the rest are scheduled over the next few months, so the momentum has picked up and the programme has recovered in that respect.

  Q325  Mr Bacon: There are loads of bugs in the software, are there not?

  Mr Rollerson: There are always bugs in software.

  Q326  Mr Bacon: Is it not true that some of the hospitals, like Winchester, have had to take many steps backwards rather than forwards in terms of having to do things like clinical noting and prescribing compared with where they were before?

  Mr Rollerson: That is nothing specifically to do with bugs in the software. In order to be part of the programme, the trusts have had to accept that they will be taking Cerner Millennium in its entirety, built to a specification, as it is laid down in the contract, over a series of releases. In some cases, the trusts have invested in the sorts of point systems which have functionality that goes beyond the functionality they will receive as the first stage of the Millennium deployment, but this is the price a number of them need to pay in order to be part of a much broader, larger programme and it is inevitable that will be the case.

  Q327  Mr Bacon: When the go-live date is set and then there is a delay, there is a cost to the trust in terms of staff time, training foregone which is not used and so on. It is very disruptive having a new computer system installed.

  Mr Rollerson: Delays, yes.

  Q328  Mr Bacon: That includes, effectively to the trust, a financial cost.

  Mr Rollerson: It does, but the delays are not necessarily attributable to the software. There have been delays on both sides.

  Q329  Mr Dunne: Mr Rollerson, the Computer Weekly article of 13 February referred to the concerns of 23 senior academics. Were you aware of the concerns raised by that group?

  Mr Rollerson: I was not.

  Q330  Mr Dunne: Have you had sight of the open letter to the Health Select Committee that group submitted in April last year?

  Mr Rollerson: No, I have not.

  Q331  Mr Dunne: Have you had any discussions with any of the 23 signatories to the letter?

  Mr Rollerson: Yes, I have. I met a number of them at the London School of Economics last October.

  Q332  Mr Dunne: One of signatories was Dr Ewart Carson who happens to be a constituent of mine and somebody you spoke to directly. Do you recall that?

  Mr Rollerson: I do not recall, it is possible that I did speak to him.

  Q333  Mr Dunne: The thrust of their concerns fell, I think, into two broad categories, the first was the risks to the security and confidentiality of patient data, and the second was the lack of technical oversight within the Department of Health for the project that they were embarked upon. Do you recognise those as the principal thrusts of those concerns?

  Mr Rollerson: Yes, I do.

  Q334  Mr Dunne: Do you share their views?

  Mr Rollerson: No, I do not. Personally, I see no concern around data confidentiality because a lot of effort is going into making sure that is dealt with adequately. Clearly, no matter how old the system is, if users share their smart cards or log-ins, there is nothing that the most rigorous system design can cater for.

  Q335  Mr Dunne: Does the system, as far as you are aware, conform with patient data confidentiality required under the Data Protection Act?

  Mr Rollerson: I am not qualified to answer that.

  Q336  Mr Dunne: Are you aware that the Health Select Committee has decided to instigate a review into this project this year?

  Mr Rollerson: I am not aware of that either.

  Q337  Mr Dunne: You have not been asked to submit evidence to that select committee?

  Mr Rollerson: No, I have not.

  Q338  Mr Williams: Does this mean state-of-the-art work?

  Mr Rollerson: I am sorry?

  Q339  Mr Williams: Does this project mean state-of-the-art work or is it possible to use off the hanger, equipment and software?

  Mr Rollerson: It is essentially being deployed with existing technology which is being modified, as all applications are, to meet the requirements of the contract.