EmisNUG Forum
Forum for Emis Users

Home » EmisNUG mailing lists » emis-list » NUG view on EMIS
NUG view on EMIS [message #22982] Tue, 06 February 2018 14:39 Go to next message
Anonymous
Originally posted by: david.evans10@virgin.net

I was wondering if there was a NUG view on the 2 significant news items in
the last week.

- the contractual "fine" re GPSoC
- being replaced by Microtest in Wales.

Dai



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

--
Sent via emis-list
Re: NUG view on EMIS [message #22983 is a reply to message #22982] Tue, 06 February 2018 16:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Originally posted by: westwood.mark@gmail.com

There should be one .. anyone done a foi on the reasons for one or both
headlines.

I thought part of GPsoc was to allow user requests to form a significant
part of Dev requests.


Mark Westwood

On 6 Feb 2018 14:39, "Dai Evans" wrote:

>
> I was wondering if there was a NUG view on the 2 significant news items in
> the last week.
>
> - the contractual "fine" re GPSoC
> - being replaced by Microtest in Wales.
>
> Dai
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>
> --
> Sent via emis-list
>
--
Sent via emis-list
RE: NUG view on EMIS [message #22984 is a reply to message #22983] Thu, 08 February 2018 09:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Originally posted by: david.evans10@virgin.net

I guess it is a difficulty for EMIS now that it has to look after its
shareholders before its customers.

It could well have been that this has thrown another competitor a lifeline
that wouldn't have occurred otherwise and they might have acquired a number
of English sites as a result.
To enforce a change in system on 191 sites may not seem like a problem to a
PLC, but it is certainly a problem to struggling practices in these
difficult days.

And we await the details of their "fine" in England and the reasons behind
it.

A pity.

But the premise of GPIT futures that is aiming to replace the duopoly -
maybe there is some merit in that view if this is what is happening now...
although there may be few people out there who understand the intricacies of
contracting IT solutions (echoing Richard Vautrey overnight on GP
consultation platforms).

Dai


**Snipped NHS Disclaimer**
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>
> --
> Sent via emis-list
>
--
Sent via emis-list

--
Sent via emis-list
Re: RE: NUG view on EMIS [message #22985 is a reply to message #22984] Thu, 08 February 2018 18:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dianatan22 is currently offline  Dianatan22
Messages: 4
Registered: February 2018
Junior Member
Could this be the final nail in the coffin? See the link afters... I've tried NHS Digital and EMIS Wales - but nobody could tell me anything! Just want to know what went wrong there, is it symptomatic of EMIS services to come elsewhere? Any GPs affected here who would care to share? Applied for FOI today - will post here if I hear back. Rolling Eyes
Re: RE: NUG view on EMIS [message #22986 is a reply to message #22985] Thu, 08 February 2018 18:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dianatan22 is currently offline  Dianatan22
Messages: 4
Registered: February 2018
Junior Member
http://www.itv.com/news/wales/2018-01-24/technical-failure-h its-welsh-nhs-it-systems/
Re: RE: NUG view on EMIS [message #22987 is a reply to message #22986] Fri, 09 February 2018 09:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Originally posted by: westwood.mark@gmail.com

I don't think this is Emis thing but maybe there is a mindset thing if you
get my drift :)

http://www.computerweekly.com/news/252433769/NHS-Wales-IT-ou tage-What-went-wrong-with-its-datacentres

On 8 Feb 2018 17:55, wrote:

>
> http://www.itv.com/news/wales/2018-01-24/technical-failure-h
> its-welsh-nhs-it-systems/
> --
> --
> Sent via the EmisNUG forum
> --
> Sent via emis-list
>
--
Sent via emis-list
Re: NUG view on EMIS [message #22988 is a reply to message #22987] Fri, 09 February 2018 10:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Originally posted by: gschrecker@emisnug.org

But do you think if a new player could come to the market place with a new approach enough GPs would be willing to change systems to shake up the mindset?

We seem to be becoming stuck with effective duopolies in each nation.

Cheers, Geoff


> On 9 Feb 2018, at 09:35, mark westwood wrote:
>
>
> I don't think this is Emis thing but maybe there is a mindset thing if you
> get my drift :)
>
> http://www.computerweekly.com/news/252433769/NHS-Wales-IT-ou tage-What-went-wrong-with-its-datacentres
>
> On 8 Feb 2018 17:55, wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.itv.com/news/wales/2018-01-24/technical-failure-h
>> its-welsh-nhs-it-systems/
>> --
>> --
>> Sent via the EmisNUG forum
>> --
>> Sent via emis-list
>>
> --
> Sent via emis-list

--
Sent via emis-list
Re: NUG view on EMIS [message #22989 is a reply to message #22988] Fri, 09 February 2018 11:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Originally posted by: misterwayne@gmail.com

A new player could come into the market place if we could separate data
from functionality.

We could have a nationally mandated data layer (either interoperability
standards or regionally or nationally hosted data centres using a standard
data set) and then have a "free market" for front end applications -
obviously subject to strict rules around access, use of data etc. It would
be exciting but full of a lot of technical and governance challenges!

Wayne

Drayton Medical Pratice
*www.draytonmedical.nhs.uk *






On 9 February 2018 at 10:20, Geoff Schrecker wrote:

>
> But do you think if a new player could come to the market place with a new
> approach enough GPs would be willing to change systems to shake up the
> mindset?
>
> We seem to be becoming stuck with effective duopolies in each nation.
>
> Cheers, Geoff
>
>
>> On 9 Feb 2018, at 09:35, mark westwood wrote:
>>
>>
>> I don't think this is Emis thing but maybe there is a mindset thing if
> you
>> get my drift :)
>>
>> http://www.computerweekly.com/news/252433769/NHS-Wales-IT-
> outage-What-went-wrong-with-its-datacentres
>>
>> On 8 Feb 2018 17:55, wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.itv.com/news/wales/2018-01-24/technical-failure-h
>>> its-welsh-nhs-it-systems/
>>> --
>>> --
>>> Sent via the EmisNUG forum
>>> --
>>> Sent via emis-list
>>>
>> --
>> Sent via emis-list
>
> --
> Sent via emis-list
>
--
Sent via emis-list
Re: NUG view on EMIS [message #22990 is a reply to message #22988] Fri, 09 February 2018 11:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Originally posted by: paulbrom@gmail.com

I am ‘out of the loop’ on the politics of this these days. Do the practices involved ‘have to’ change system??

Best wishes

Paul Bromley

Sent from my iPhone

> On 9 Feb 2018, at 10:20, Geoff Schrecker wrote:
>
>
> But do you think if a new player could come to the market place with a new approach enough GPs would be willing to change systems to shake up the mindset?
>
> We seem to be becoming stuck with effective duopolies in each nation.
>
> Cheers, Geoff
>
>
>> On 9 Feb 2018, at 09:35, mark westwood wrote:
>>
>>
>> I don't think this is Emis thing but maybe there is a mindset thing if you
>> get my drift :)
>>
>> http://www.computerweekly.com/news/252433769/NHS-Wales-IT-ou tage-What-went-wrong-with-its-datacentres
>>
>>> On 8 Feb 2018 17:55, wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.itv.com/news/wales/2018-01-24/technical-failure-h
>>> its-welsh-nhs-it-systems/
>>> --
>>> --
>>> Sent via the EmisNUG forum
>>> --
>>> Sent via emis-list
>>>
>> --
>> Sent via emis-list
>
> --
> Sent via emis-list
--
Sent via emis-list
Re: NUG view on EMIS [message #22991 is a reply to message #22990] Fri, 09 February 2018 12:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dianatan22 is currently offline  Dianatan22
Messages: 4
Registered: February 2018
Junior Member
Have to indeed! This has just been released by NHWIS - see the FAQ 2.8. http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/956/page/94929
Re: NUG view on EMIS [message #22992 is a reply to message #22991] Fri, 09 February 2018 19:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Originally posted by: paulbrom@gmail.com

This is an absolute tragedy for practices concerned. I am sure that we all
know the pain in changing systems - even if we want to. If enforced then I
hate to think what it will be like. Do those that have decided this realise
the problems for practices and the investment that they have made in their
clinic system - warts and all?


I am old enough to remember when we only had 50% reimbursement. I always
thought and said that we were giving up the crown jewels for the remaining
50%. I believe like elsewhere there is a GP recruitment crisis in Wales.
This will surely make it worse from the point of retention. If I were 60 in
one of these practices I would certainly be leaving rather than going
through the pain of changing.

Are there any Welsh EMIS users here that are facing this threat? Is there
anything that we can collectively do for you?? Good Luck to you all for the
future.

Best wishes

Paul Bromley

On 9 February 2018 at 12:19, wrote:

>
> Have to indeed! This has just been released by NHWIS - see
> the FAQ 2.8.
> http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/956/page/94929
>
> --
> --
> Sent via the EmisNUG forum
> --
> Sent via emis-list
>



--
Best Wishes

Paul Bromley
--
Sent via emis-list
Re: NUG view on EMIS [message #22993 is a reply to message #22992] Mon, 12 February 2018 14:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DrDamo is currently offline  DrDamo
Messages: 349
Registered: March 2014
Location: Birmingham
Senior Member
I agree that it is a nightmare for the practices who now have no choice but to change clinical systems. Not what anyone would want.

However this was a formal procurement and EMIS failed on a number of points that INPS and Microtest passed. Surely no one is suggesting that EMIS should be allowed through despite failing just because they are a current supplier or because it will be difficult to make the change?

With any competitive procurement any supplier who 'fails' has the right to appeal and challenge any decisions. I have no idea if EMIS did this but the outcome hasn't changed. A challenge to a procurement decision can be long and costly so I am sure those involved at NWIS made this decision with great care.

In England there are two 'hurdles' on the horizon for all system suppliers - the one year extension of GPSoC and then the new GP Futures framework. These will not be automatic and any of the suppliers, including EMIS, could be refused entry if they don't meet the requirements set.

The past year has seen a fairly long list of problems and failures in the EMIS system, and an awful lot of complaining on this forum, so I'm not sure any of us should be surprised by this. Let's hope this won't be happening to us too - I definitely don't want to go through another system migration. However I do need a system I can rely on and that meets my needs.

Damian

________________________________________
From: emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net on behalf of Paul Bromley
Sent: 09 February 2018 19:41
To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS

This is an absolute tragedy for practices concerned. I am sure that we all
know the pain in changing systems - even if we want to. If enforced then I
hate to think what it will be like. Do those that have decided this realise
the problems for practices and the investment that they have made in their
clinic system - warts and all?


I am old enough to remember when we only had 50% reimbursement. I always
thought and said that we were giving up the crown jewels for the remaining
50%. I believe like elsewhere there is a GP recruitment crisis in Wales.
This will surely make it worse from the point of retention. If I were 60 in
one of these practices I would certainly be leaving rather than going
through the pain of changing.

Are there any Welsh EMIS users here that are facing this threat? Is there
anything that we can collectively do for you?? Good Luck to you all for the
future.

Best wishes

Paul Bromley

On 9 February 2018 at 12:19, wrote:

>
> Have to indeed! This has just been released by NHWIS - see
> the FAQ 2.8.
> http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/956/page/94929
>
> --
> --
> Sent via the EmisNUG forum
> --
> Sent via emis-list
>



--
Best Wishes

Paul Bromley
--
Sent via emis-list


**Snipped NHS Disclaimer**

This message may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the
sender that you have received the message in error before deleting it.
Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in relation to its contents. To do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your co-operation.

NHSmail is the secure email and directory service available for all NHS staff in England and Scotland. NHSmail is approved for exchanging patient data and other sensitive information with NHSmail and other accredited email services.

For more information and to find out how you can switch, https://portal.nhs.net/help/joiningnhsmail

--
Sent via emis-list
Re: NUG view on EMIS [message #22994 is a reply to message #22993] Mon, 12 February 2018 14:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Originally posted by: misterwayne@gmail.com

what is really concerning though is this:

*"The contract is effective for a four-year period from January 2019, with
the option to extend for up to a further two years. "* - so after four to
six years it could another enforced change of system if the procurement
process goes that way?

Drayton Medical Pratice
*www.draytonmedical.nhs.uk *


On 12 February 2018 at 14:16, WILLIAMS, Damian (NHS BIRMINGHAM CROSSCITY
CCG) wrote:

>
> I agree that it is a nightmare for the practices who now have no choice
> but to change clinical systems. Not what anyone would want.
>
> However this was a formal procurement and EMIS failed on a number of
> points that INPS and Microtest passed. Surely no one is suggesting that
> EMIS should be allowed through despite failing just because they are a
> current supplier or because it will be difficult to make the change?
>
> With any competitive procurement any supplier who 'fails' has the right to
> appeal and challenge any decisions. I have no idea if EMIS did this but
> the outcome hasn't changed. A challenge to a procurement decision can be
> long and costly so I am sure those involved at NWIS made this decision with
> great care.
>
> In England there are two 'hurdles' on the horizon for all system suppliers
> - the one year extension of GPSoC and then the new GP Futures framework.
> These will not be automatic and any of the suppliers, including EMIS, could
> be refused entry if they don't meet the requirements set.
>
> The past year has seen a fairly long list of problems and failures in the
> EMIS system, and an awful lot of complaining on this forum, so I'm not sure
> any of us should be surprised by this. Let's hope this won't be happening
> to us too - I definitely don't want to go through another system
> migration. However I do need a system I can rely on and that meets my
> needs.
>
> Damian
>
> ________________________________________
> From: emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net on
> behalf of Paul Bromley
> Sent: 09 February 2018 19:41
> To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
> Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS
>
> This is an absolute tragedy for practices concerned. I am sure that we all
> know the pain in changing systems - even if we want to. If enforced then I
> hate to think what it will be like. Do those that have decided this realise
> the problems for practices and the investment that they have made in their
> clinic system - warts and all?
>
>
> I am old enough to remember when we only had 50% reimbursement. I always
> thought and said that we were giving up the crown jewels for the remaining
> 50%. I believe like elsewhere there is a GP recruitment crisis in Wales.
> This will surely make it worse from the point of retention. If I were 60 in
> one of these practices I would certainly be leaving rather than going
> through the pain of changing.
>
> Are there any Welsh EMIS users here that are facing this threat? Is there
> anything that we can collectively do for you?? Good Luck to you all for the
> future.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Paul Bromley
>
> On 9 February 2018 at 12:19, wrote:
>
>>
>> Have to indeed! This has just been released by NHWIS - see
>> the FAQ 2.8.
>> http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/956/page/94929
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Sent via the EmisNUG forum
>> --
>> Sent via emis-list
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best Wishes
>
> Paul Bromley
> --
> Sent via emis-list
>
>
> **Snipped NHS Disclaimer**
>
> This message may contain confidential information. If you are not the
> intended recipient please inform the
> sender that you have received the message in error before deleting it.
> Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or
> take any action in relation to its contents. To do so is strictly
> prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your co-operation.
>
> NHSmail is the secure email and directory service available for all NHS
> staff in England and Scotland. NHSmail is approved for exchanging patient
> data and other sensitive information with NHSmail and other accredited
> email services.
>
> For more information and to find out how you can switch,
> https://portal.nhs.net/help/joiningnhsmail
>
> --
> Sent via emis-list
>
--
Sent via emis-list
Re: NUG view on EMIS [message #22995 is a reply to message #22994] Mon, 12 February 2018 14:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DrDamo is currently offline  DrDamo
Messages: 349
Registered: March 2014
Location: Birmingham
Senior Member
That certainly isn't an ideal situation, though you would hope that closer management of the contract would prevent that happening.

Still I can't see how a system that doesn't meet the requirements can be allowed to retain the contract. If you fail CQC despite remedial action you can't just expect to continue because withdrawing the contract would be difficult for the patients.

There does need to be a remedial process as a sudden system change is in no-one's interest. My understanding (limited) of GP Futures is that it will be better in this respect.

It is going to take a LOT of EMIS resource to manage the change in Wales - I hope that doesn't further degrade the service we get. Likewise with the multi million pound fine.

Damian

________________________________________
From: emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net on behalf of Wayne Bolt
Sent: 12 February 2018 14:50
To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS

what is really concerning though is this:

*"The contract is effective for a four-year period from January 2019, with
the option to extend for up to a further two years. "* - so after four to
six years it could another enforced change of system if the procurement
process goes that way?

Drayton Medical Pratice
*www.draytonmedical.nhs.uk *


On 12 February 2018 at 14:16, WILLIAMS, Damian (NHS BIRMINGHAM CROSSCITY
CCG) wrote:

>
> I agree that it is a nightmare for the practices who now have no choice
> but to change clinical systems. Not what anyone would want.
>
> However this was a formal procurement and EMIS failed on a number of
> points that INPS and Microtest passed. Surely no one is suggesting that
> EMIS should be allowed through despite failing just because they are a
> current supplier or because it will be difficult to make the change?
>
> With any competitive procurement any supplier who 'fails' has the right to
> appeal and challenge any decisions. I have no idea if EMIS did this but
> the outcome hasn't changed. A challenge to a procurement decision can be
> long and costly so I am sure those involved at NWIS made this decision with
> great care.
>
> In England there are two 'hurdles' on the horizon for all system suppliers
> - the one year extension of GPSoC and then the new GP Futures framework.
> These will not be automatic and any of the suppliers, including EMIS, could
> be refused entry if they don't meet the requirements set.
>
> The past year has seen a fairly long list of problems and failures in the
> EMIS system, and an awful lot of complaining on this forum, so I'm not sure
> any of us should be surprised by this. Let's hope this won't be happening
> to us too - I definitely don't want to go through another system
> migration. However I do need a system I can rely on and that meets my
> needs.
>
> Damian
>
> ________________________________________
> From: emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net on
> behalf of Paul Bromley
> Sent: 09 February 2018 19:41
> To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
> Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS
>
> This is an absolute tragedy for practices concerned. I am sure that we all
> know the pain in changing systems - even if we want to. If enforced then I
> hate to think what it will be like. Do those that have decided this realise
> the problems for practices and the investment that they have made in their
> clinic system - warts and all?
>
>
> I am old enough to remember when we only had 50% reimbursement. I always
> thought and said that we were giving up the crown jewels for the remaining
> 50%. I believe like elsewhere there is a GP recruitment crisis in Wales.
> This will surely make it worse from the point of retention. If I were 60 in
> one of these practices I would certainly be leaving rather than going
> through the pain of changing.
>
> Are there any Welsh EMIS users here that are facing this threat? Is there
> anything that we can collectively do for you?? Good Luck to you all for the
> future.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Paul Bromley
>
> On 9 February 2018 at 12:19, wrote:
>
>>
>> Have to indeed! This has just been released by NHWIS - see
>> the FAQ 2.8.
>> http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/956/page/94929
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Sent via the EmisNUG forum
>> --
>> Sent via emis-list
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best Wishes
>
> Paul Bromley
> --
> Sent via emis-list
>
>
> **Snipped NHS Disclaimer**

This message may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the
sender that you have received the message in error before deleting it.
Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in relation to its contents. To do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your co-operation.

NHSmail is the secure email and directory service available for all NHS staff in England and Scotland. NHSmail is approved for exchanging patient data and other sensitive information with NHSmail and other accredited email services.

For more information and to find out how you can switch, https://portal.nhs.net/help/joiningnhsmail

--
Sent via emis-list
Re: NUG view on EMIS [message #22996 is a reply to message #22995] Mon, 12 February 2018 23:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Originally posted by: paulbrom@gmail.com

I take on board what you are saying Damian. However, the problem is that it
is the GPs who are powerless in the middle ............... and the ones
that will suffer most. They carefully chose EMIS as there clinical system
and invested a lot of time and effort into using it. In many cases this
would have been done when systems were purchased purely for clinical use,
and at a time when GPs had control and paid at least 50%.

I do wonder what EMIS 'failed' on. I don't know, but what if this is a non
clinical area, and is more 'back-end'. As a GP in Wales I would then be
very much 'cheesed off' with the fact that I was going to have to change
clinical systems just because backend functionality wasn't doing what it
should. I was always opposed to 100% reimbursement and loss of control
regarding who owned the system. This now demonstrates that loss of control,
and what can happen. Fortunately it matters not to me personally.

Best wishes

Paul Bromley

On 12 February 2018 at 14:59, WILLIAMS, Damian (NHS BIRMINGHAM CROSSCITY
CCG) wrote:

>
> That certainly isn't an ideal situation, though you would hope that closer
> management of the contract would prevent that happening.
>
> Still I can't see how a system that doesn't meet the requirements can be
> allowed to retain the contract. If you fail CQC despite remedial action
> you can't just expect to continue because withdrawing the contract would be
> difficult for the patients.
>
> There does need to be a remedial process as a sudden system change is in
> no-one's interest. My understanding (limited) of GP Futures is that it
> will be better in this respect.
>
> It is going to take a LOT of EMIS resource to manage the change in Wales -
> I hope that doesn't further degrade the service we get. Likewise with the
> multi million pound fine.
>
> Damian
>
> ________________________________________
> From: emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net on
> behalf of Wayne Bolt
> Sent: 12 February 2018 14:50
> To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
> Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS
>
> what is really concerning though is this:
>
> *"The contract is effective for a four-year period from January 2019, with
> the option to extend for up to a further two years. "* - so after four to
> six years it could another enforced change of system if the procurement
> process goes that way?
>
> Drayton Medical Pratice
> *www.draytonmedical.nhs.uk *
>
>
> On 12 February 2018 at 14:16, WILLIAMS, Damian (NHS BIRMINGHAM CROSSCITY
> CCG) wrote:
>
>>
>> I agree that it is a nightmare for the practices who now have no choice
>> but to change clinical systems. Not what anyone would want.
>>
>> However this was a formal procurement and EMIS failed on a number of
>> points that INPS and Microtest passed. Surely no one is suggesting that
>> EMIS should be allowed through despite failing just because they are a
>> current supplier or because it will be difficult to make the change?
>>
>> With any competitive procurement any supplier who 'fails' has the right
> to
>> appeal and challenge any decisions. I have no idea if EMIS did this but
>> the outcome hasn't changed. A challenge to a procurement decision can be
>> long and costly so I am sure those involved at NWIS made this decision
> with
>> great care.
>>
>> In England there are two 'hurdles' on the horizon for all system
> suppliers
>> - the one year extension of GPSoC and then the new GP Futures framework.
>> These will not be automatic and any of the suppliers, including EMIS,
> could
>> be refused entry if they don't meet the requirements set.
>>
>> The past year has seen a fairly long list of problems and failures in the
>> EMIS system, and an awful lot of complaining on this forum, so I'm not
> sure
>> any of us should be surprised by this. Let's hope this won't be
> happening
>> to us too - I definitely don't want to go through another system
>> migration. However I do need a system I can rely on and that meets my
>> needs.
>>
>> Damian
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net on
>> behalf of Paul Bromley
>> Sent: 09 February 2018 19:41
>> To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
>> Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS
>>
>> This is an absolute tragedy for practices concerned. I am sure that we
> all
>> know the pain in changing systems - even if we want to. If enforced then
> I
>> hate to think what it will be like. Do those that have decided this
> realise
>> the problems for practices and the investment that they have made in
> their
>> clinic system - warts and all?
>>
>>
>> I am old enough to remember when we only had 50% reimbursement. I always
>> thought and said that we were giving up the crown jewels for the
> remaining
>> 50%. I believe like elsewhere there is a GP recruitment crisis in Wales.
>> This will surely make it worse from the point of retention. If I were 60
> in
>> one of these practices I would certainly be leaving rather than going
>> through the pain of changing.
>>
>> Are there any Welsh EMIS users here that are facing this threat? Is there
>> anything that we can collectively do for you?? Good Luck to you all for
> the
>> future.
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Paul Bromley
>>
>> On 9 February 2018 at 12:19, wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Have to indeed! This has just been released by NHWIS - see
>>> the FAQ 2.8.
>>> http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/956/page/94929
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> Sent via the EmisNUG forum
>>> --
>>> Sent via emis-list
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best Wishes
>>
>> Paul Bromley
>> --
>> Sent via emis-list
>>
>>
>> **Snipped NHS Disclaimer**
>
> This message may contain confidential information. If you are not the
> intended recipient please inform the
> sender that you have received the message in error before deleting it.
> Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or
> take any action in relation to its contents. To do so is strictly
> prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your co-operation.
>
> NHSmail is the secure email and directory service available for all NHS
> staff in England and Scotland. NHSmail is approved for exchanging patient
> data and other sensitive information with NHSmail and other accredited
> email services.
>
> For more information and to find out how you can switch,
> https://portal.nhs.net/help/joiningnhsmail
>
> --
> Sent via emis-list
>



--
Best Wishes

Paul Bromley
--
Sent via emis-list
Re: NUG view on EMIS [message #22997 is a reply to message #22996] Tue, 13 February 2018 00:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DrDamo is currently offline  DrDamo
Messages: 349
Registered: March 2014
Location: Birmingham
Senior Member
You are right, it is not fair on the GPs. Particularly if they choose EMIS on the back of the assurance that EMIS were on a national framework. I presume NWIS will be funding the migrations as well as taking some responsibility for lost data and the potential clinical risks associated with it. They will presumably have to pay for some kind of backup in case audit trails are needed in a future legal case from a patient.

Of course if those GPs were self funding they could have chosen iSoft and would have found themselves in the same positron a few years ago when the supplier chose to leave the primary care market.

As someone else pointed out it is high time we divorced the data from the front end. Then clinical system choice becomes more like choosing a browser. Or even multiple 'browsers' - EMIS for clinical note taking, frontdesk for appointments, SystmOne for templates and Evergreen for PFS.

Damian

Sent from Nine
________________________________
From: Paul Bromley
Sent: Monday, 12 February 2018 23:08
To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS


I take on board what you are saying Damian. However, the problem is that it
is the GPs who are powerless in the middle ............... and the ones
that will suffer most. They carefully chose EMIS as there clinical system
and invested a lot of time and effort into using it. In many cases this
would have been done when systems were purchased purely for clinical use,
and at a time when GPs had control and paid at least 50%.

I do wonder what EMIS 'failed' on. I don't know, but what if this is a non
clinical area, and is more 'back-end'. As a GP in Wales I would then be
very much 'cheesed off' with the fact that I was going to have to change
clinical systems just because backend functionality wasn't doing what it
should. I was always opposed to 100% reimbursement and loss of control
regarding who owned the system. This now demonstrates that loss of control,
and what can happen. Fortunately it matters not to me personally.

Best wishes

Paul Bromley

On 12 February 2018 at 14:59, WILLIAMS, Damian (NHS BIRMINGHAM CROSSCITY
CCG) wrote:

>
> That certainly isn't an ideal situation, though you would hope that closer
> management of the contract would prevent that happening.
>
> Still I can't see how a system that doesn't meet the requirements can be
> allowed to retain the contract. If you fail CQC despite remedial action
> you can't just expect to continue because withdrawing the contract would be
> difficult for the patients.
>
> There does need to be a remedial process as a sudden system change is in
> no-one's interest. My understanding (limited) of GP Futures is that it
> will be better in this respect.
>
> It is going to take a LOT of EMIS resource to manage the change in Wales -
> I hope that doesn't further degrade the service we get. Likewise with the
> multi million pound fine.
>
> Damian
>
> ________________________________________
> From: emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net on
> behalf of Wayne Bolt
> Sent: 12 February 2018 14:50
> To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
> Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS
>
> what is really concerning though is this:
>
> *"The contract is effective for a four-year period from January 2019, with
> the option to extend for up to a further two years. "* - so after four to
> six years it could another enforced change of system if the procurement
> process goes that way?
>
> Drayton Medical Pratice
> *www.draytonmedical.nhs.uk *
>
>
> On 12 February 2018 at 14:16, WILLIAMS, Damian (NHS BIRMINGHAM CROSSCITY
> CCG) wrote:
>
>>
>> I agree that it is a nightmare for the practices who now have no choice
>> but to change clinical systems. Not what anyone would want.
>>
>> However this was a formal procurement and EMIS failed on a number of
>> points that INPS and Microtest passed. Surely no one is suggesting that
>> EMIS should be allowed through despite failing just because they are a
>> current supplier or because it will be difficult to make the change?
>>
>> With any competitive procurement any supplier who 'fails' has the right
> to
>> appeal and challenge any decisions. I have no idea if EMIS did this but
>> the outcome hasn't changed. A challenge to a procurement decision can be
>> long and costly so I am sure those involved at NWIS made this decision
> with
>> great care.
>>
>> In England there are two 'hurdles' on the horizon for all system
> suppliers
>> - the one year extension of GPSoC and then the new GP Futures framework.
>> These will not be automatic and any of the suppliers, including EMIS,
> could
>> be refused entry if they don't meet the requirements set.
>>
>> The past year has seen a fairly long list of problems and failures in the
>> EMIS system, and an awful lot of complaining on this forum, so I'm not
> sure
>> any of us should be surprised by this. Let's hope this won't be
> happening
>> to us too - I definitely don't want to go through another system
>> migration. However I do need a system I can rely on and that meets my
>> needs.
>>
>> Damian
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net on
>> behalf of Paul Bromley
>> Sent: 09 February 2018 19:41
>> To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
>> Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS
>>
>> This is an absolute tragedy for practices concerned. I am sure that we
> all
>> know the pain in changing systems - even if we want to. If enforced then
> I
>> hate to think what it will be like. Do those that have decided this
> realise
>> the problems for practices and the investment that they have made in
> their
>> clinic system - warts and all?
>>
>>
>> I am old enough to remember when we only had 50% reimbursement. I always
>> thought and said that we were giving up the crown jewels for the
> remaining
>> 50%. I believe like elsewhere there is a GP recruitment crisis in Wales.
>> This will surely make it worse from the point of retention. If I were 60
> in
>> one of these practices I would certainly be leaving rather than going
>> through the pain of changing.
>>
>> Are there any Welsh EMIS users here that are facing this threat? Is there
>> anything that we can collectively do for you?? Good Luck to you all for
> the
>> future.
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Paul Bromley
>>
>> On 9 February 2018 at 12:19, wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Have to indeed! This has just been released by NHWIS - see
>>> the FAQ 2.8.
>>> http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/956/page/94929
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> Sent via the EmisNUG forum
>>> --
>>> Sent via emis-list
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best Wishes
>>
>> Paul Bromley
>> --
>> Sent via emis-list
>>
>>
>> **Snipped NHS Disclaimer**

This message may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the
sender that you have received the message in error before deleting it.
Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in relation to its contents. To do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your co-operation.

NHSmail is the secure email and directory service available for all NHS staff in England and Scotland. NHSmail is approved for exchanging patient data and other sensitive information with NHSmail and other accredited email services.

For more information and to find out how you can switch, https://portal.nhs.net/help/joiningnhsmail

--
Sent via emis-list
Re: NUG view on EMIS [message #22998 is a reply to message #22997] Tue, 13 February 2018 08:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Originally posted by: sarah.stanleysmith@gmail.com

Surely if Emis is not fit for purpose in Wales, then it is not fit for purpose in England or Scotland either?
Sarah
(5 months to retirement and counting!)
Sent from my iPhone

> On 13 Feb 2018, at 00:08, WILLIAMS, Damian (NHS BIRMINGHAM CROSSCITY CCG) wrote:
>
>
> You are right, it is not fair on the GPs. Particularly if they choose EMIS on the back of the assurance that EMIS were on a national framework. I presume NWIS will be funding the migrations as well as taking some responsibility for lost data and the potential clinical risks associated with it. They will presumably have to pay for some kind of backup in case audit trails are needed in a future legal case from a patient.
>
> Of course if those GPs were self funding they could have chosen iSoft and would have found themselves in the same positron a few years ago when the supplier chose to leave the primary care market.
>
> As someone else pointed out it is high time we divorced the data from the front end. Then clinical system choice becomes more like choosing a browser. Or even multiple 'browsers' - EMIS for clinical note taking, frontdesk for appointments, SystmOne for templates and Evergreen for PFS.
>
> Damian
>
> Sent from Nine
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Bromley
> Sent: Monday, 12 February 2018 23:08
> To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
> Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS
>
>
> I take on board what you are saying Damian. However, the problem is that it
> is the GPs who are powerless in the middle ............... and the ones
> that will suffer most. They carefully chose EMIS as there clinical system
> and invested a lot of time and effort into using it. In many cases this
> would have been done when systems were purchased purely for clinical use,
> and at a time when GPs had control and paid at least 50%.
>
> I do wonder what EMIS 'failed' on. I don't know, but what if this is a non
> clinical area, and is more 'back-end'. As a GP in Wales I would then be
> very much 'cheesed off' with the fact that I was going to have to change
> clinical systems just because backend functionality wasn't doing what it
> should. I was always opposed to 100% reimbursement and loss of control
> regarding who owned the system. This now demonstrates that loss of control,
> and what can happen. Fortunately it matters not to me personally.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Paul Bromley
>
> On 12 February 2018 at 14:59, WILLIAMS, Damian (NHS BIRMINGHAM CROSSCITY
> CCG) wrote:
>
>>
>> That certainly isn't an ideal situation, though you would hope that closer
>> management of the contract would prevent that happening.
>>
>> Still I can't see how a system that doesn't meet the requirements can be
>> allowed to retain the contract. If you fail CQC despite remedial action
>> you can't just expect to continue because withdrawing the contract would be
>> difficult for the patients.
>>
>> There does need to be a remedial process as a sudden system change is in
>> no-one's interest. My understanding (limited) of GP Futures is that it
>> will be better in this respect.
>>
>> It is going to take a LOT of EMIS resource to manage the change in Wales -
>> I hope that doesn't further degrade the service we get. Likewise with the
>> multi million pound fine.
>>
>> Damian
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net on
>> behalf of Wayne Bolt
>> Sent: 12 February 2018 14:50
>> To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
>> Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS
>>
>> what is really concerning though is this:
>>
>> *"The contract is effective for a four-year period from January 2019, with
>> the option to extend for up to a further two years. "* - so after four to
>> six years it could another enforced change of system if the procurement
>> process goes that way?
>>
>> Drayton Medical Pratice
>> *www.draytonmedical.nhs.uk *
>>
>>
>> On 12 February 2018 at 14:16, WILLIAMS, Damian (NHS BIRMINGHAM CROSSCITY
>> CCG) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I agree that it is a nightmare for the practices who now have no choice
>>> but to change clinical systems. Not what anyone would want.
>>>
>>> However this was a formal procurement and EMIS failed on a number of
>>> points that INPS and Microtest passed. Surely no one is suggesting that
>>> EMIS should be allowed through despite failing just because they are a
>>> current supplier or because it will be difficult to make the change?
>>>
>>> With any competitive procurement any supplier who 'fails' has the right
>> to
>>> appeal and challenge any decisions. I have no idea if EMIS did this but
>>> the outcome hasn't changed. A challenge to a procurement decision can be
>>> long and costly so I am sure those involved at NWIS made this decision
>> with
>>> great care.
>>>
>>> In England there are two 'hurdles' on the horizon for all system
>> suppliers
>>> - the one year extension of GPSoC and then the new GP Futures framework.
>>> These will not be automatic and any of the suppliers, including EMIS,
>> could
>>> be refused entry if they don't meet the requirements set.
>>>
>>> The past year has seen a fairly long list of problems and failures in the
>>> EMIS system, and an awful lot of complaining on this forum, so I'm not
>> sure
>>> any of us should be surprised by this. Let's hope this won't be
>> happening
>>> to us too - I definitely don't want to go through another system
>>> migration. However I do need a system I can rely on and that meets my
>>> needs.
>>>
>>> Damian
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net on
>>> behalf of Paul Bromley
>>> Sent: 09 February 2018 19:41
>>> To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
>>> Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS
>>>
>>> This is an absolute tragedy for practices concerned. I am sure that we
>> all
>>> know the pain in changing systems - even if we want to. If enforced then
>> I
>>> hate to think what it will be like. Do those that have decided this
>> realise
>>> the problems for practices and the investment that they have made in
>> their
>>> clinic system - warts and all?
>>>
>>>
>>> I am old enough to remember when we only had 50% reimbursement. I always
>>> thought and said that we were giving up the crown jewels for the
>> remaining
>>> 50%. I believe like elsewhere there is a GP recruitment crisis in Wales.
>>> This will surely make it worse from the point of retention. If I were 60
>> in
>>> one of these practices I would certainly be leaving rather than going
>>> through the pain of changing.
>>>
>>> Are there any Welsh EMIS users here that are facing this threat? Is there
>>> anything that we can collectively do for you?? Good Luck to you all for
>> the
>>> future.
>>>
>>> Best wishes
>>>
>>> Paul Bromley
>>>
>>>> On 9 February 2018 at 12:19, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Have to indeed! This has just been released by NHWIS - see
>>>> the FAQ 2.8.
>>>> http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/956/page/94929
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --
>>>> Sent via the EmisNUG forum
>>>> --
>>>> Sent via emis-list
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best Wishes
>>>
>>> Paul Bromley
>>> --
>>> Sent via emis-list
>>>
>>>
>>> **Snipped NHS Disclaimer**
>
> This message may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the
> sender that you have received the message in error before deleting it.
> Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in relation to its contents. To do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your co-operation.
>
> NHSmail is the secure email and directory service available for all NHS staff in England and Scotland. NHSmail is approved for exchanging patient data and other sensitive information with NHSmail and other accredited email services.
>
> For more information and to find out how you can switch, https://portal.nhs.net/help/joiningnhsmail
>
> --
> Sent via emis-list
--
Sent via emis-list
RE: NUG view on EMIS [message #22999 is a reply to message #22998] Tue, 13 February 2018 08:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Originally posted by: alangton@nhs.net

For me too there are increasingly other things to look forward to and I have so far refrained from saying anything but surely this is a damning verdict on EMIS's performance as a customer serving organisation. I would agree with previous comments that the experience of the software and the back-up service in the last year or two leaves one not desperately surprised.

It is significant that customers in England have not even been sent a letter or press release about something that feels very important, explaining what has happened. Either it is not deemed important or us as customers in England are not deemed important enough to notify.

Either way I suspect it won't be long before the same starts to happen in England. Sadly the clock continues to tick on the demise of EMIS.

Andy Langton
Bristol

**Snipped NHS Disclaimer**
From: emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net [mailto:emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net] On Behalf Of Sarah Stanley-Smith
Sent: 13 February 2018 08:18
To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS


Surely if Emis is not fit for purpose in Wales, then it is not fit for purpose in England or Scotland either?
Sarah
(5 months to retirement and counting!)
Sent from my iPhone

> On 13 Feb 2018, at 00:08, WILLIAMS, Damian (NHS BIRMINGHAM CROSSCITY CCG) wrote:
>
>
> You are right, it is not fair on the GPs. Particularly if they choose EMIS on the back of the assurance that EMIS were on a national framework. I presume NWIS will be funding the migrations as well as taking some responsibility for lost data and the potential clinical risks associated with it. They will presumably have to pay for some kind of backup in case audit trails are needed in a future legal case from a patient.
>
> Of course if those GPs were self funding they could have chosen iSoft and would have found themselves in the same positron a few years ago when the supplier chose to leave the primary care market.
>
> As someone else pointed out it is high time we divorced the data from the front end. Then clinical system choice becomes more like choosing a browser. Or even multiple 'browsers' - EMIS for clinical note taking, frontdesk for appointments, SystmOne for templates and Evergreen for PFS.
>
> Damian
>
> Sent from Nine
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Bromley
> Sent: Monday, 12 February 2018 23:08
> To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
> Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS
>
>
> I take on board what you are saying Damian. However, the problem is
> that it is the GPs who are powerless in the middle ............... and
> the ones that will suffer most. They carefully chose EMIS as there
> clinical system and invested a lot of time and effort into using it.
> In many cases this would have been done when systems were purchased
> purely for clinical use, and at a time when GPs had control and paid at least 50%.
>
> I do wonder what EMIS 'failed' on. I don't know, but what if this is a
> non clinical area, and is more 'back-end'. As a GP in Wales I would
> then be very much 'cheesed off' with the fact that I was going to have
> to change clinical systems just because backend functionality wasn't
> doing what it should. I was always opposed to 100% reimbursement and
> loss of control regarding who owned the system. This now demonstrates
> that loss of control, and what can happen. Fortunately it matters not to me personally.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Paul Bromley
>
> On 12 February 2018 at 14:59, WILLIAMS, Damian (NHS BIRMINGHAM
> CROSSCITY
> CCG) wrote:
>
>>
>> That certainly isn't an ideal situation, though you would hope that
>> closer management of the contract would prevent that happening.
>>
>> Still I can't see how a system that doesn't meet the requirements can
>> be allowed to retain the contract. If you fail CQC despite remedial
>> action you can't just expect to continue because withdrawing the
>> contract would be difficult for the patients.
>>
>> There does need to be a remedial process as a sudden system change is
>> in no-one's interest. My understanding (limited) of GP Futures is
>> that it will be better in this respect.
>>
>> It is going to take a LOT of EMIS resource to manage the change in
>> Wales - I hope that doesn't further degrade the service we get.
>> Likewise with the multi million pound fine.
>>
>> Damian
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net
>> on behalf of Wayne Bolt
>> Sent: 12 February 2018 14:50
>> To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
>> Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS
>>
>> what is really concerning though is this:
>>
>> *"The contract is effective for a four-year period from January 2019,
>> with the option to extend for up to a further two years. "* - so
>> after four to six years it could another enforced change of system if
>> the procurement process goes that way?
>>
>> Drayton Medical Pratice
>> *www.draytonmedical.nhs.uk *
>>
>>
>> On 12 February 2018 at 14:16, WILLIAMS, Damian (NHS BIRMINGHAM
>> CROSSCITY
>> CCG) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I agree that it is a nightmare for the practices who now have no
>>> choice but to change clinical systems. Not what anyone would want.
>>>
>>> However this was a formal procurement and EMIS failed on a number of
>>> points that INPS and Microtest passed. Surely no one is suggesting
>>> that EMIS should be allowed through despite failing just because
>>> they are a current supplier or because it will be difficult to make the change?
>>>
>>> With any competitive procurement any supplier who 'fails' has the
>>> right
>> to
>>> appeal and challenge any decisions. I have no idea if EMIS did this
>>> but the outcome hasn't changed. A challenge to a procurement
>>> decision can be long and costly so I am sure those involved at NWIS
>>> made this decision
>> with
>>> great care.
>>>
>>> In England there are two 'hurdles' on the horizon for all system
>> suppliers
>>> - the one year extension of GPSoC and then the new GP Futures framework.
>>> These will not be automatic and any of the suppliers, including
>>> EMIS,
>> could
>>> be refused entry if they don't meet the requirements set.
>>>
>>> The past year has seen a fairly long list of problems and failures
>>> in the EMIS system, and an awful lot of complaining on this forum,
>>> so I'm not
>> sure
>>> any of us should be surprised by this. Let's hope this won't be
>> happening
>>> to us too - I definitely don't want to go through another system
>>> migration. However I do need a system I can rely on and that meets
>>> my needs.
>>>
>>> Damian
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net
>>> on behalf of Paul Bromley
>>> Sent: 09 February 2018 19:41
>>> To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
>>> Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS
>>>
>>> This is an absolute tragedy for practices concerned. I am sure that
>>> we
>> all
>>> know the pain in changing systems - even if we want to. If enforced
>>> then
>> I
>>> hate to think what it will be like. Do those that have decided this
>> realise
>>> the problems for practices and the investment that they have made in
>> their
>>> clinic system - warts and all?
>>>
>>>
>>> I am old enough to remember when we only had 50% reimbursement. I
>>> always thought and said that we were giving up the crown jewels for
>>> the
>> remaining
>>> 50%. I believe like elsewhere there is a GP recruitment crisis in Wales.
>>> This will surely make it worse from the point of retention. If I
>>> were 60
>> in
>>> one of these practices I would certainly be leaving rather than
>>> going through the pain of changing.
>>>
>>> Are there any Welsh EMIS users here that are facing this threat? Is
>>> there anything that we can collectively do for you?? Good Luck to
>>> you all for
>> the
>>> future.
>>>
>>> Best wishes
>>>
>>> Paul Bromley
>>>
>>>> On 9 February 2018 at 12:19, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Have to indeed! This has just been released by NHWIS - see the FAQ
>>>> 2.8.
>>>> http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/956/page/94929
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --
>>>> Sent via the EmisNUG forum
>>>> --
>>>> Sent via emis-list
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best Wishes
>>>
>>> Paul Bromley
>>> --
>>> Sent via emis-list
>>>
>>>
>>> **Snipped NHS Disclaimer**

This message may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the
sender that you have received the message in error before deleting it.
Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in relation to its contents. To do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your co-operation.

NHSmail is the secure email and directory service available for all NHS staff in England and Scotland. NHSmail is approved for exchanging patient data and other sensitive information with NHSmail and other accredited email services.

For more information and to find out how you can switch, https://portal.nhs.net/help/joiningnhsmail

--
Sent via emis-list
Re: NUG view on EMIS [message #23000 is a reply to message #22999] Tue, 13 February 2018 09:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DrDamo is currently offline  DrDamo
Messages: 349
Registered: March 2014
Location: Birmingham
Senior Member
EMIS have definitely lost their way and need significant investment (probably a whole system rewrite) to get back on track. However i would be very sad if we came to the point of witnessing the demise of EMIS. I don't think that would be good for anyone.

I agree that EMIS should be commenting on this. And not just reassuring platitudes - real details and concrete remedial plans. If people lose confidence in the system that is the start of the slippery slope.

I would like to see EMIS being given their big fine back but on the condition of using it for a user driven system rewrite. Perhaps with the agreement that no new developments are needed in EMIS Web (just ongoing bug fixes). A new modular system written in modern code and using current design principles.

Damian

________________________________
From: LANGTON, Andy (MONKS PARK SURGERY)
Sent: Tuesday, 13 February 2018 08:44
To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
Subject: RE: NUG view on EMIS

**Snipped NHS Disclaimer**
From: emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net [mailto:emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net] On Behalf Of Sarah Stanley-Smith
Sent: 13 February 2018 08:18
To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS


Surely if Emis is not fit for purpose in Wales, then it is not fit for purpose in England or Scotland either?
Sarah
(5 months to retirement and counting!)
Sent from my iPhone

> On 13 Feb 2018, at 00:08, WILLIAMS, Damian (NHS BIRMINGHAM CROSSCITY CCG) wrote:
>
>
> You are right, it is not fair on the GPs. Particularly if they choose EMIS on the back of the assurance that EMIS were on a national framework. I presume NWIS will be funding the migrations as well as taking some responsibility for lost data and the potential clinical risks associated with it. They will presumably have to pay for some kind of backup in case audit trails are needed in a future legal case from a patient.
>
> Of course if those GPs were self funding they could have chosen iSoft and would have found themselves in the same positron a few years ago when the supplier chose to leave the primary care market.
>
> As someone else pointed out it is high time we divorced the data from the front end. Then clinical system choice becomes more like choosing a browser. Or even multiple 'browsers' - EMIS for clinical note taking, frontdesk for appointments, SystmOne for templates and Evergreen for PFS.
>
> Damian
>
> Sent from Nine
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Bromley
> Sent: Monday, 12 February 2018 23:08
> To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
> Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS
>
>
> I take on board what you are saying Damian. However, the problem is
> that it is the GPs who are powerless in the middle ............... and
> the ones that will suffer most. They carefully chose EMIS as there
> clinical system and invested a lot of time and effort into using it.
> In many cases this would have been done when systems were purchased
> purely for clinical use, and at a time when GPs had control and paid at least 50%.
>
> I do wonder what EMIS 'failed' on. I don't know, but what if this is a
> non clinical area, and is more 'back-end'. As a GP in Wales I would
> then be very much 'cheesed off' with the fact that I was going to have
> to change clinical systems just because backend functionality wasn't
> doing what it should. I was always opposed to 100% reimbursement and
> loss of control regarding who owned the system. This now demonstrates
> that loss of control, and what can happen. Fortunately it matters not to me personally.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Paul Bromley
>
> On 12 February 2018 at 14:59, WILLIAMS, Damian (NHS BIRMINGHAM
> CROSSCITY
> CCG) wrote:
>
>>
>> That certainly isn't an ideal situation, though you would hope that
>> closer management of the contract would prevent that happening.
>>
>> Still I can't see how a system that doesn't meet the requirements can
>> be allowed to retain the contract. If you fail CQC despite remedial
>> action you can't just expect to continue because withdrawing the
>> contract would be difficult for the patients.
>>
>> There does need to be a remedial process as a sudden system change is
>> in no-one's interest. My understanding (limited) of GP Futures is
>> that it will be better in this respect.
>>
>> It is going to take a LOT of EMIS resource to manage the change in
>> Wales - I hope that doesn't further degrade the service we get.
>> Likewise with the multi million pound fine.
>>
>> Damian
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net
>> on behalf of Wayne Bolt
>> Sent: 12 February 2018 14:50
>> To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
>> Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS
>>
>> what is really concerning though is this:
>>
>> *"The contract is effective for a four-year period from January 2019,
>> with the option to extend for up to a further two years. "* - so
>> after four to six years it could another enforced change of system if
>> the procurement process goes that way?
>>
>> Drayton Medical Pratice
>> *www.draytonmedical.nhs.uk *
>>
>>
>> On 12 February 2018 at 14:16, WILLIAMS, Damian (NHS BIRMINGHAM
>> CROSSCITY
>> CCG) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I agree that it is a nightmare for the practices who now have no
>>> choice but to change clinical systems. Not what anyone would want.
>>>
>>> However this was a formal procurement and EMIS failed on a number of
>>> points that INPS and Microtest passed. Surely no one is suggesting
>>> that EMIS should be allowed through despite failing just because
>>> they are a current supplier or because it will be difficult to make the change?
>>>
>>> With any competitive procurement any supplier who 'fails' has the
>>> right
>> to
>>> appeal and challenge any decisions. I have no idea if EMIS did this
>>> but the outcome hasn't changed. A challenge to a procurement
>>> decision can be long and costly so I am sure those involved at NWIS
>>> made this decision
>> with
>>> great care.
>>>
>>> In England there are two 'hurdles' on the horizon for all system
>> suppliers
>>> - the one year extension of GPSoC and then the new GP Futures framework.
>>> These will not be automatic and any of the suppliers, including
>>> EMIS,
>> could
>>> be refused entry if they don't meet the requirements set.
>>>
>>> The past year has seen a fairly long list of problems and failures
>>> in the EMIS system, and an awful lot of complaining on this forum,
>>> so I'm not
>> sure
>>> any of us should be surprised by this. Let's hope this won't be
>> happening
>>> to us too - I definitely don't want to go through another system
>>> migration. However I do need a system I can rely on and that meets
>>> my needs.
>>>
>>> Damian
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net
>>> on behalf of Paul Bromley
>>> Sent: 09 February 2018 19:41
>>> To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
>>> Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS
>>>
>>> This is an absolute tragedy for practices concerned. I am sure that
>>> we
>> all
>>> know the pain in changing systems - even if we want to. If enforced
>>> then
>> I
>>> hate to think what it will be like. Do those that have decided this
>> realise
>>> the problems for practices and the investment that they have made in
>> their
>>> clinic system - warts and all?
>>>
>>>
>>> I am old enough to remember when we only had 50% reimbursement. I
>>> always thought and said that we were giving up the crown jewels for
>>> the
>> remaining
>>> 50%. I believe like elsewhere there is a GP recruitment crisis in Wales.
>>> This will surely make it worse from the point of retention. If I
>>> were 60
>> in
>>> one of these practices I would certainly be leaving rather than
>>> going through the pain of changing.
>>>
>>> Are there any Welsh EMIS users here that are facing this threat? Is
>>> there anything that we can collectively do for you?? Good Luck to
>>> you all for
>> the
>>> future.
>>>
>>> Best wishes
>>>
>>> Paul Bromley
>>>
>>>> On 9 February 2018 at 12:19, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Have to indeed! This has just been released by NHWIS - see the FAQ
>>>> 2.8.
>>>> http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/956/page/94929
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --
>>>> Sent via the EmisNUG forum
>>>> --
>>>> Sent via emis-list
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best Wishes
>>>
>>> Paul Bromley
>>> --
>>> Sent via emis-list
>>>
>>>
>>> **Snipped NHS Disclaimer**

This message may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the
sender that you have received the message in error before deleting it.
Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in relation to its contents. To do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your co-operation.

NHSmail is the secure email and directory service available for all NHS staff in England and Scotland. NHSmail is approved for exchanging patient data and other sensitive information with NHSmail and other accredited email services.

For more information and to find out how you can switch, https://portal.nhs.net/help/joiningnhsmail

--
Sent via emis-list
Re: NUG view on EMIS [message #23001 is a reply to message #23000] Tue, 13 February 2018 09:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Originally posted by: gschrecker@emisnug.org

Damian,

Would that be the equivalent of fixing the data, when we really need to fix
the system?

Cheers Geoff

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 09:22, WILLIAMS, Damian (NHS BIRMINGHAM CROSSCITY
CCG) wrote:

>
> EMIS have definitely lost their way and need significant investment
> (probably a whole system rewrite) to get back on track. However i would be
> very sad if we came to the point of witnessing the demise of EMIS. I don't
> think that would be good for anyone.
>
> I agree that EMIS should be commenting on this. And not just reassuring
> platitudes - real details and concrete remedial plans. If people lose
> confidence in the system that is the start of the slippery slope.
>
> I would like to see EMIS being given their big fine back but on the
> condition of using it for a user driven system rewrite. Perhaps with the
> agreement that no new developments are needed in EMIS Web (just ongoing bug
> fixes). A new modular system written in modern code and using current
> design principles.
>
> Damian
>
> ________________________________
> From: LANGTON, Andy (MONKS PARK SURGERY)
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 February 2018 08:44
> To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
> Subject: RE: NUG view on EMIS
>
> **Snipped NHS Disclaimer**
> From: emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net [mailto:emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net]
> On Behalf Of Sarah Stanley-Smith
> Sent: 13 February 2018 08:18
> To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
> Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS
>
>
> Surely if Emis is not fit for purpose in Wales, then it is not fit for
> purpose in England or Scotland either?
> Sarah
> (5 months to retirement and counting!)
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 13 Feb 2018, at 00:08, WILLIAMS, Damian (NHS BIRMINGHAM CROSSCITY
> CCG) wrote:
>>
>>
>> You are right, it is not fair on the GPs. Particularly if they choose
> EMIS on the back of the assurance that EMIS were on a national framework. I
> presume NWIS will be funding the migrations as well as taking some
> responsibility for lost data and the potential clinical risks associated
> with it. They will presumably have to pay for some kind of backup in case
> audit trails are needed in a future legal case from a patient.
>>
>> Of course if those GPs were self funding they could have chosen iSoft
> and would have found themselves in the same positron a few years ago when
> the supplier chose to leave the primary care market.
>>
>> As someone else pointed out it is high time we divorced the data from
> the front end. Then clinical system choice becomes more like choosing a
> browser. Or even multiple 'browsers' - EMIS for clinical note taking,
> frontdesk for appointments, SystmOne for templates and Evergreen for PFS.
>>
>> Damian
>>
>> Sent from Nine
>> ________________________________
>> From: Paul Bromley
>> Sent: Monday, 12 February 2018 23:08
>> To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
>> Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS
>>
>>
>> I take on board what you are saying Damian. However, the problem is
>> that it is the GPs who are powerless in the middle ............... and
>> the ones that will suffer most. They carefully chose EMIS as there
>> clinical system and invested a lot of time and effort into using it.
>> In many cases this would have been done when systems were purchased
>> purely for clinical use, and at a time when GPs had control and paid at
> least 50%.
>>
>> I do wonder what EMIS 'failed' on. I don't know, but what if this is a
>> non clinical area, and is more 'back-end'. As a GP in Wales I would
>> then be very much 'cheesed off' with the fact that I was going to have
>> to change clinical systems just because backend functionality wasn't
>> doing what it should. I was always opposed to 100% reimbursement and
>> loss of control regarding who owned the system. This now demonstrates
>> that loss of control, and what can happen. Fortunately it matters not to
> me personally.
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Paul Bromley
>>
>> On 12 February 2018 at 14:59, WILLIAMS, Damian (NHS BIRMINGHAM
>> CROSSCITY
>> CCG) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> That certainly isn't an ideal situation, though you would hope that
>>> closer management of the contract would prevent that happening.
>>>
>>> Still I can't see how a system that doesn't meet the requirements can
>>> be allowed to retain the contract. If you fail CQC despite remedial
>>> action you can't just expect to continue because withdrawing the
>>> contract would be difficult for the patients.
>>>
>>> There does need to be a remedial process as a sudden system change is
>>> in no-one's interest. My understanding (limited) of GP Futures is
>>> that it will be better in this respect.
>>>
>>> It is going to take a LOT of EMIS resource to manage the change in
>>> Wales - I hope that doesn't further degrade the service we get.
>>> Likewise with the multi million pound fine.
>>>
>>> Damian
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net
>>> on behalf of Wayne Bolt
>>> Sent: 12 February 2018 14:50
>>> To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
>>> Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS
>>>
>>> what is really concerning though is this:
>>>
>>> *"The contract is effective for a four-year period from January 2019,
>>> with the option to extend for up to a further two years. "* - so
>>> after four to six years it could another enforced change of system if
>>> the procurement process goes that way?
>>>
>>> Drayton Medical Pratice
>>> *www.draytonmedical.nhs.uk *
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12 February 2018 at 14:16, WILLIAMS, Damian (NHS BIRMINGHAM
>>> CROSSCITY
>>> CCG) wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree that it is a nightmare for the practices who now have no
>>>> choice but to change clinical systems. Not what anyone would want.
>>>>
>>>> However this was a formal procurement and EMIS failed on a number of
>>>> points that INPS and Microtest passed. Surely no one is suggesting
>>>> that EMIS should be allowed through despite failing just because
>>>> they are a current supplier or because it will be difficult to make
> the change?
>>>>
>>>> With any competitive procurement any supplier who 'fails' has the
>>>> right
>>> to
>>>> appeal and challenge any decisions. I have no idea if EMIS did this
>>>> but the outcome hasn't changed. A challenge to a procurement
>>>> decision can be long and costly so I am sure those involved at NWIS
>>>> made this decision
>>> with
>>>> great care.
>>>>
>>>> In England there are two 'hurdles' on the horizon for all system
>>> suppliers
>>>> - the one year extension of GPSoC and then the new GP Futures
> framework.
>>>> These will not be automatic and any of the suppliers, including
>>>> EMIS,
>>> could
>>>> be refused entry if they don't meet the requirements set.
>>>>
>>>> The past year has seen a fairly long list of problems and failures
>>>> in the EMIS system, and an awful lot of complaining on this forum,
>>>> so I'm not
>>> sure
>>>> any of us should be surprised by this. Let's hope this won't be
>>> happening
>>>> to us too - I definitely don't want to go through another system
>>>> migration. However I do need a system I can rely on and that meets
>>>> my needs.
>>>>
>>>> Damian
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net
>>>> on behalf of Paul Bromley
>>>> Sent: 09 February 2018 19:41
>>>> To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
>>>> Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS
>>>>
>>>> This is an absolute tragedy for practices concerned. I am sure that
>>>> we
>>> all
>>>> know the pain in changing systems - even if we want to. If enforced
>>>> then
>>> I
>>>> hate to think what it will be like. Do those that have decided this
>>> realise
>>>> the problems for practices and the investment that they have made in
>>> their
>>>> clinic system - warts and all?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am old enough to remember when we only had 50% reimbursement. I
>>>> always thought and said that we were giving up the crown jewels for
>>>> the
>>> remaining
>>>> 50%. I believe like elsewhere there is a GP recruitment crisis in
> Wales.
>>>> This will surely make it worse from the point of retention. If I
>>>> were 60
>>> in
>>>> one of these practices I would certainly be leaving rather than
>>>> going through the pain of changing.
>>>>
>>>> Are there any Welsh EMIS users here that are facing this threat? Is
>>>> there anything that we can collectively do for you?? Good Luck to
>>>> you all for
>>> the
>>>> future.
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes
>>>>
>>>> Paul Bromley
>>>>
>>>> > On 9 February 2018 at 12:19, wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Have to indeed! This has just been released by NHWIS - see the FAQ
>>>> > 2.8.
>>>> > http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/956/page/94929
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > --
>>>> > Sent via the EmisNUG forum
>>>> > --
>>>> > Sent via emis-list
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Best Wishes
>>>>
>>>> Paul Bromley
>>>> --
>>>> Sent via emis-list
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **Snipped NHS Disclaimer**
>
> This message may contain confidential information. If you are not the
> intended recipient please inform the
> sender that you have received the message in error before deleting it.
> Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or
> take any action in relation to its contents. To do so is strictly
> prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your co-operation.
>
> NHSmail is the secure email and directory service available for all NHS
> staff in England and Scotland. NHSmail is approved for exchanging patient
> data and other sensitive information with NHSmail and other accredited
> email services.
>
> For more information and to find out how you can switch,
> https://portal.nhs.net/help/joiningnhsmail
>
> --
> Sent via emis-list
>
--
Dr Geoff Schrecker

Chair, EMIS National User Group

www.emisnug.org.uk
www.facebook.com/emisnug
twitter.com/emis_nug



--
Sent via emis-list
Re: NUG view on EMIS [message #23002 is a reply to message #23001] Tue, 13 February 2018 09:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DrDamo is currently offline  DrDamo
Messages: 349
Registered: March 2014
Location: Birmingham
Senior Member
Sorry Geoff you have lost me there. I was advocating a system rewrite rather than a data fix.

The data does need some work and, in my opinion, needs to be independent of the system suppliers (with clear data standards, APIs and access management etc).

Damian
________________________________
From: Geoff Schrecker
Sent: Tuesday, 13 February 2018 09:32
To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS


Damian,

Would that be the equivalent of fixing the data, when we really need to fix
the system?

Cheers Geoff

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 09:22, WILLIAMS, Damian (NHS BIRMINGHAM CROSSCITY
CCG) wrote:

>
> EMIS have definitely lost their way and need significant investment
> (probably a whole system rewrite) to get back on track. However i would be
> very sad if we came to the point of witnessing the demise of EMIS. I don't
> think that would be good for anyone.
>
> I agree that EMIS should be commenting on this. And not just reassuring
> platitudes - real details and concrete remedial plans. If people lose
> confidence in the system that is the start of the slippery slope.
>
> I would like to see EMIS being given their big fine back but on the
> condition of using it for a user driven system rewrite. Perhaps with the
> agreement that no new developments are needed in EMIS Web (just ongoing bug
> fixes). A new modular system written in modern code and using current
> design principles.
>
> Damian
>
> ________________________________
> From: LANGTON, Andy (MONKS PARK SURGERY)
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 February 2018 08:44
> To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
> Subject: RE: NUG view on EMIS
>
> **Snipped NHS Disclaimer**
> From: emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net [mailto:emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net]
> On Behalf Of Sarah Stanley-Smith
> Sent: 13 February 2018 08:18
> To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
> Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS
>
>
> Surely if Emis is not fit for purpose in Wales, then it is not fit for
> purpose in England or Scotland either?
> Sarah
> (5 months to retirement and counting!)
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 13 Feb 2018, at 00:08, WILLIAMS, Damian (NHS BIRMINGHAM CROSSCITY
> CCG) wrote:
>>
>>
>> You are right, it is not fair on the GPs. Particularly if they choose
> EMIS on the back of the assurance that EMIS were on a national framework. I
> presume NWIS will be funding the migrations as well as taking some
> responsibility for lost data and the potential clinical risks associated
> with it. They will presumably have to pay for some kind of backup in case
> audit trails are needed in a future legal case from a patient.
>>
>> Of course if those GPs were self funding they could have chosen iSoft
> and would have found themselves in the same positron a few years ago when
> the supplier chose to leave the primary care market.
>>
>> As someone else pointed out it is high time we divorced the data from
> the front end. Then clinical system choice becomes more like choosing a
> browser. Or even multiple 'browsers' - EMIS for clinical note taking,
> frontdesk for appointments, SystmOne for templates and Evergreen for PFS.
>>
>> Damian
>>
>> Sent from Nine
>> ________________________________
>> From: Paul Bromley
>> Sent: Monday, 12 February 2018 23:08
>> To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
>> Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS
>>
>>
>> I take on board what you are saying Damian. However, the problem is
>> that it is the GPs who are powerless in the middle ............... and
>> the ones that will suffer most. They carefully chose EMIS as there
>> clinical system and invested a lot of time and effort into using it.
>> In many cases this would have been done when systems were purchased
>> purely for clinical use, and at a time when GPs had control and paid at
> least 50%.
>>
>> I do wonder what EMIS 'failed' on. I don't know, but what if this is a
>> non clinical area, and is more 'back-end'. As a GP in Wales I would
>> then be very much 'cheesed off' with the fact that I was going to have
>> to change clinical systems just because backend functionality wasn't
>> doing what it should. I was always opposed to 100% reimbursement and
>> loss of control regarding who owned the system. This now demonstrates
>> that loss of control, and what can happen. Fortunately it matters not to
> me personally.
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Paul Bromley
>>
>> On 12 February 2018 at 14:59, WILLIAMS, Damian (NHS BIRMINGHAM
>> CROSSCITY
>> CCG) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> That certainly isn't an ideal situation, though you would hope that
>>> closer management of the contract would prevent that happening.
>>>
>>> Still I can't see how a system that doesn't meet the requirements can
>>> be allowed to retain the contract. If you fail CQC despite remedial
>>> action you can't just expect to continue because withdrawing the
>>> contract would be difficult for the patients.
>>>
>>> There does need to be a remedial process as a sudden system change is
>>> in no-one's interest. My understanding (limited) of GP Futures is
>>> that it will be better in this respect.
>>>
>>> It is going to take a LOT of EMIS resource to manage the change in
>>> Wales - I hope that doesn't further degrade the service we get.
>>> Likewise with the multi million pound fine.
>>>
>>> Damian
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net
>>> on behalf of Wayne Bolt
>>> Sent: 12 February 2018 14:50
>>> To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
>>> Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS
>>>
>>> what is really concerning though is this:
>>>
>>> *"The contract is effective for a four-year period from January 2019,
>>> with the option to extend for up to a further two years. "* - so
>>> after four to six years it could another enforced change of system if
>>> the procurement process goes that way?
>>>
>>> Drayton Medical Pratice
>>> *www.draytonmedical.nhs.uk *
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12 February 2018 at 14:16, WILLIAMS, Damian (NHS BIRMINGHAM
>>> CROSSCITY
>>> CCG) wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree that it is a nightmare for the practices who now have no
>>>> choice but to change clinical systems. Not what anyone would want.
>>>>
>>>> However this was a formal procurement and EMIS failed on a number of
>>>> points that INPS and Microtest passed. Surely no one is suggesting
>>>> that EMIS should be allowed through despite failing just because
>>>> they are a current supplier or because it will be difficult to make
> the change?
>>>>
>>>> With any competitive procurement any supplier who 'fails' has the
>>>> right
>>> to
>>>> appeal and challenge any decisions. I have no idea if EMIS did this
>>>> but the outcome hasn't changed. A challenge to a procurement
>>>> decision can be long and costly so I am sure those involved at NWIS
>>>> made this decision
>>> with
>>>> great care.
>>>>
>>>> In England there are two 'hurdles' on the horizon for all system
>>> suppliers
>>>> - the one year extension of GPSoC and then the new GP Futures
> framework.
>>>> These will not be automatic and any of the suppliers, including
>>>> EMIS,
>>> could
>>>> be refused entry if they don't meet the requirements set.
>>>>
>>>> The past year has seen a fairly long list of problems and failures
>>>> in the EMIS system, and an awful lot of complaining on this forum,
>>>> so I'm not
>>> sure
>>>> any of us should be surprised by this. Let's hope this won't be
>>> happening
>>>> to us too - I definitely don't want to go through another system
>>>> migration. However I do need a system I can rely on and that meets
>>>> my needs.
>>>>
>>>> Damian
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net
>>>> on behalf of Paul Bromley
>>>> Sent: 09 February 2018 19:41
>>>> To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
>>>> Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS
>>>>
>>>> This is an absolute tragedy for practices concerned. I am sure that
>>>> we
>>> all
>>>> know the pain in changing systems - even if we want to. If enforced
>>>> then
>>> I
>>>> hate to think what it will be like. Do those that have decided this
>>> realise
>>>> the problems for practices and the investment that they have made in
>>> their
>>>> clinic system - warts and all?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am old enough to remember when we only had 50% reimbursement. I
>>>> always thought and said that we were giving up the crown jewels for
>>>> the
>>> remaining
>>>> 50%. I believe like elsewhere there is a GP recruitment crisis in
> Wales.
>>>> This will surely make it worse from the point of retention. If I
>>>> were 60
>>> in
>>>> one of these practices I would certainly be leaving rather than
>>>> going through the pain of changing.
>>>>
>>>> Are there any Welsh EMIS users here that are facing this threat? Is
>>>> there anything that we can collectively do for you?? Good Luck to
>>>> you all for
>>> the
>>>> future.
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes
>>>>
>>>> Paul Bromley
>>>>
>>>> > On 9 February 2018 at 12:19, wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Have to indeed! This has just been released by NHWIS - see the FAQ
>>>> > 2.8.
>>>> > http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/956/page/94929
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > --
>>>> > Sent via the EmisNUG forum
>>>> > --
>>>> > Sent via emis-list
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Best Wishes
>>>>
>>>> Paul Bromley
>>>> --
>>>> Sent via emis-list
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **Snipped NHS Disclaimer**

This message may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the
sender that you have received the message in error before deleting it.
Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in relation to its contents. To do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your co-operation.

NHSmail is the secure email and directory service available for all NHS staff in England and Scotland. NHSmail is approved for exchanging patient data and other sensitive information with NHSmail and other accredited email services.

For more information and to find out how you can switch, https://portal.nhs.net/help/joiningnhsmail

--
Sent via emis-list
RE: NUG view on EMIS [message #23003 is a reply to message #23000] Tue, 13 February 2018 10:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
tim.walter is currently offline  tim.walter
Messages: 1604
Registered: July 2010
Senior Member
I would like to see EMIS being given their big fine back but on the condition of using it for a user driven system rewrite. Perhaps with the agreement that no new developments are needed in EMIS Web (just ongoing bug fixes). A new modular system written in modern code and using current design principles.

I agree that fines should be a deterrent but actually implemented they can restrict capacity to improve. However I suspect the phrase you use that no new developments are needed is the crux of many of the problems. System suppliers are beholden to the multitude of changes and developments imposed and inflicted on them (just as we are) and probably don't have much capacity to take a deep breath and do something good. An example may well be the upcoming transition to SNOMED this year...


**Snipped NHS Disclaimer**

This message may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the
sender that you have received the message in error before deleting it.
Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in relation to its contents. To do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your co-operation.

NHSmail is the secure email and directory service available for all NHS staff in England and Scotland. NHSmail is approved for exchanging patient data and other sensitive information with NHSmail and other accredited email services.

For more information and to find out how you can switch, https://portal.nhs.net/help/joiningnhsmail

--
Sent via emis-list
RE: NUG view on EMIS [message #23004 is a reply to message #23003] Tue, 13 February 2018 11:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DrDamo is currently offline  DrDamo
Messages: 349
Registered: March 2014
Location: Birmingham
Senior Member
I chose the words carefully! Continuing to develop an old system whilst writing a new would be a challenge for any organisation. It strikes me this is an opportunity to correct this.

That said EMIS have also taken on multiple private pieces of work that have also eaten into their capacity. Obviously they are a commercial company but they do need assess priorities. Taking on extra work is fine as long as you can meet your existing obligations.

Damian

**Snipped NHS Disclaimer**

I would like to see EMIS being given their big fine back but on the condition of using it for a user driven system rewrite. Perhaps with the agreement that no new developments are needed in EMIS Web (just ongoing bug fixes). A new modular system written in modern code and using current design principles.

I agree that fines should be a deterrent but actually implemented they can restrict capacity to improve. However I suspect the phrase you use that no new developments are needed is the crux of many of the problems. System suppliers are beholden to the multitude of changes and developments imposed and inflicted on them (just as we are) and probably don't have much capacity to take a deep breath and do something good. An example may well be the upcoming transition to SNOMED this year...


**Snipped NHS Disclaimer**

This message may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the
sender that you have received the message in error before deleting it.
Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in relation to its contents. To do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your co-operation.

NHSmail is the secure email and directory service available for all NHS staff in England and Scotland. NHSmail is approved for exchanging patient data and other sensitive information with NHSmail and other accredited email services.

For more information and to find out how you can switch, https://portal.nhs.net/help/joiningnhsmail

--
Sent via emis-list
Re: NUG view on EMIS [message #23005 is a reply to message #23002] Tue, 13 February 2018 12:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Originally posted by: gschrecker@emisnug.org

A one time re-write of one system is like fixing the data when you find a Data Quality issue, rather than getting to the root of the problem. Why has a major supplier got into this situation, and what needs to be done, not only to fix it now, but to ensure we aren’t back in the same place in 2 years time?

Cheers, Geoff


> On 13 Feb 2018, at 09:43, WILLIAMS, Damian (NHS BIRMINGHAM CROSSCITY CCG) wrote:
>
>
> Sorry Geoff you have lost me there. I was advocating a system rewrite rather than a data fix.
>
> The data does need some work and, in my opinion, needs to be independent of the system suppliers (with clear data standards, APIs and access management etc).
>
> Damian
> ________________________________
> From: Geoff Schrecker
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 February 2018 09:32
> To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
> Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS
>
>
> Damian,
>
> Would that be the equivalent of fixing the data, when we really need to fix
> the system?
>
> Cheers Geoff
>
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 09:22, WILLIAMS, Damian (NHS BIRMINGHAM CROSSCITY
> CCG) wrote:
>
>>
>> EMIS have definitely lost their way and need significant investment
>> (probably a whole system rewrite) to get back on track. However i would be
>> very sad if we came to the point of witnessing the demise of EMIS. I don't
>> think that would be good for anyone.
>>
>> I agree that EMIS should be commenting on this. And not just reassuring
>> platitudes - real details and concrete remedial plans. If people lose
>> confidence in the system that is the start of the slippery slope.
>>
>> I would like to see EMIS being given their big fine back but on the
>> condition of using it for a user driven system rewrite. Perhaps with the
>> agreement that no new developments are needed in EMIS Web (just ongoing bug
>> fixes). A new modular system written in modern code and using current
>> design principles.
>>
>> Damian
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: LANGTON, Andy (MONKS PARK SURGERY)
>> Sent: Tuesday, 13 February 2018 08:44
>> To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
>> Subject: RE: NUG view on EMIS
>>
>> **Snipped NHS Disclaimer**
>> From: emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net [mailto:emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net]
>> On Behalf Of Sarah Stanley-Smith
>> Sent: 13 February 2018 08:18
>> To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
>> Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS
>>
>>
>> Surely if Emis is not fit for purpose in Wales, then it is not fit for
>> purpose in England or Scotland either?
>> Sarah
>> (5 months to retirement and counting!)
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On 13 Feb 2018, at 00:08, WILLIAMS, Damian (NHS BIRMINGHAM CROSSCITY
>> CCG) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> You are right, it is not fair on the GPs. Particularly if they choose
>> EMIS on the back of the assurance that EMIS were on a national framework. I
>> presume NWIS will be funding the migrations as well as taking some
>> responsibility for lost data and the potential clinical risks associated
>> with it. They will presumably have to pay for some kind of backup in case
>> audit trails are needed in a future legal case from a patient.
>>>
>>> Of course if those GPs were self funding they could have chosen iSoft
>> and would have found themselves in the same positron a few years ago when
>> the supplier chose to leave the primary care market.
>>>
>>> As someone else pointed out it is high time we divorced the data from
>> the front end. Then clinical system choice becomes more like choosing a
>> browser. Or even multiple 'browsers' - EMIS for clinical note taking,
>> frontdesk for appointments, SystmOne for templates and Evergreen for PFS.
>>>
>>> Damian
>>>
>>> Sent from Nine
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Paul Bromley
>>> Sent: Monday, 12 February 2018 23:08
>>> To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
>>> Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS
>>>
>>>
>>> I take on board what you are saying Damian. However, the problem is
>>> that it is the GPs who are powerless in the middle ............... and
>>> the ones that will suffer most. They carefully chose EMIS as there
>>> clinical system and invested a lot of time and effort into using it.
>>> In many cases this would have been done when systems were purchased
>>> purely for clinical use, and at a time when GPs had control and paid at
>> least 50%.
>>>
>>> I do wonder what EMIS 'failed' on. I don't know, but what if this is a
>>> non clinical area, and is more 'back-end'. As a GP in Wales I would
>>> then be very much 'cheesed off' with the fact that I was going to have
>>> to change clinical systems just because backend functionality wasn't
>>> doing what it should. I was always opposed to 100% reimbursement and
>>> loss of control regarding who owned the system. This now demonstrates
>>> that loss of control, and what can happen. Fortunately it matters not to
>> me personally.
>>>
>>> Best wishes
>>>
>>> Paul Bromley
>>>
>>> On 12 February 2018 at 14:59, WILLIAMS, Damian (NHS BIRMINGHAM
>>> CROSSCITY
>>> CCG) wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That certainly isn't an ideal situation, though you would hope that
>>>> closer management of the contract would prevent that happening.
>>>>
>>>> Still I can't see how a system that doesn't meet the requirements can
>>>> be allowed to retain the contract. If you fail CQC despite remedial
>>>> action you can't just expect to continue because withdrawing the
>>>> contract would be difficult for the patients.
>>>>
>>>> There does need to be a remedial process as a sudden system change is
>>>> in no-one's interest. My understanding (limited) of GP Futures is
>>>> that it will be better in this respect.
>>>>
>>>> It is going to take a LOT of EMIS resource to manage the change in
>>>> Wales - I hope that doesn't further degrade the service we get.
>>>> Likewise with the multi million pound fine.
>>>>
>>>> Damian
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net
>>>> on behalf of Wayne Bolt
>>>> Sent: 12 February 2018 14:50
>>>> To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
>>>> Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS
>>>>
>>>> what is really concerning though is this:
>>>>
>>>> *"The contract is effective for a four-year period from January 2019,
>>>> with the option to extend for up to a further two years. "* - so
>>>> after four to six years it could another enforced change of system if
>>>> the procurement process goes that way?
>>>>
>>>> Drayton Medical Pratice
>>>> *www.draytonmedical.nhs.uk *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12 February 2018 at 14:16, WILLIAMS, Damian (NHS BIRMINGHAM
>>>> CROSSCITY
>>>> CCG) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > I agree that it is a nightmare for the practices who now have no
>>>> > choice but to change clinical systems. Not what anyone would want.
>>>> >
>>>> > However this was a formal procurement and EMIS failed on a number of
>>>> > points that INPS and Microtest passed. Surely no one is suggesting
>>>> > that EMIS should be allowed through despite failing just because
>>>> > they are a current supplier or because it will be difficult to make
>> the change?
>>>> >
>>>> > With any competitive procurement any supplier who 'fails' has the
>>>> > right
>>>> to
>>>> > appeal and challenge any decisions. I have no idea if EMIS did this
>>>> > but the outcome hasn't changed. A challenge to a procurement
>>>> > decision can be long and costly so I am sure those involved at NWIS
>>>> > made this decision
>>>> with
>>>> > great care.
>>>> >
>>>> > In England there are two 'hurdles' on the horizon for all system
>>>> suppliers
>>>> > - the one year extension of GPSoC and then the new GP Futures
>> framework.
>>>> > These will not be automatic and any of the suppliers, including
>>>> > EMIS,
>>>> could
>>>> > be refused entry if they don't meet the requirements set.
>>>> >
>>>> > The past year has seen a fairly long list of problems and failures
>>>> > in the EMIS system, and an awful lot of complaining on this forum,
>>>> > so I'm not
>>>> sure
>>>> > any of us should be surprised by this. Let's hope this won't be
>>>> happening
>>>> > to us too - I definitely don't want to go through another system
>>>> > migration. However I do need a system I can rely on and that meets
>>>> > my needs.
>>>> >
>>>> > Damian
>>>> >
>>>> > ________________________________________
>>>> > From: emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net
>>>> > on behalf of Paul Bromley
>>>> > Sent: 09 February 2018 19:41
>>>> > To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
>>>> > Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS
>>>> >
>>>> > This is an absolute tragedy for practices concerned. I am sure that
>>>> > we
>>>> all
>>>> > know the pain in changing systems - even if we want to. If enforced
>>>> > then
>>>> I
>>>> > hate to think what it will be like. Do those that have decided this
>>>> realise
>>>> > the problems for practices and the investment that they have made in
>>>> their
>>>> > clinic system - warts and all?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > I am old enough to remember when we only had 50% reimbursement. I
>>>> > always thought and said that we were giving up the crown jewels for
>>>> > the
>>>> remaining
>>>> > 50%. I believe like elsewhere there is a GP recruitment crisis in
>> Wales.
>>>> > This will surely make it worse from the point of retention. If I
>>>> > were 60
>>>> in
>>>> > one of these practices I would certainly be leaving rather than
>>>> > going through the pain of changing.
>>>> >
>>>> > Are there any Welsh EMIS users here that are facing this threat? Is
>>>> > there anything that we can collectively do for you?? Good Luck to
>>>> > you all for
>>>> the
>>>> > future.
>>>> >
>>>> > Best wishes
>>>> >
>>>> > Paul Bromley
>>>> >
>>>> >> On 9 February 2018 at 12:19, wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Have to indeed! This has just been released by NHWIS - see the FAQ
>>>> >> 2.8.
>>>> >> http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/956/page/94929
>>>> >>
>>>> >> --
>>>> >> --
>>>> >> Sent via the EmisNUG forum
>>>> >> --
>>>> >> Sent via emis-list
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Best Wishes
>>>> >
>>>> > Paul Bromley
>>>> > --
>>>> > Sent via emis-list
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > **Snipped NHS Disclaimer**
>
> This message may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the
> sender that you have received the message in error before deleting it.
> Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in relation to its contents. To do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your co-operation.
>
> NHSmail is the secure email and directory service available for all NHS staff in England and Scotland. NHSmail is approved for exchanging patient data and other sensitive information with NHSmail and other accredited email services.
>
> For more information and to find out how you can switch, https://portal.nhs.net/help/joiningnhsmail
>
> --
> Sent via emis-list

--
Sent via emis-list
RE: NUG view on EMIS [message #23006 is a reply to message #23002] Tue, 13 February 2018 12:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Originally posted by: david.evans10@virgin.net

I quite agree with the viewpoints expressed. The paternalist central command
view however does risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The users should be in control of what they choose and use so long as it
conforms to the required national standards. That end user choice might
sharpen the mind set of those delivering systems.

In the end we need to have certain stability in the use of a fundamental
tool for the delivery of care.

The loss of central support for Data Quality also wrankles too as the
standard of records deteriorates and ability to sustain good quality care
falls away [personal interest declared!]
Dai


**Snipped NHS Disclaimer**
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

--
Sent via emis-list
Re: NUG view on EMIS [message #23007 is a reply to message #23006] Tue, 13 February 2018 12:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anonymous
Originally posted by: gschrecker@emisnug.org

Exactly….



> On 13 Feb 2018, at 12:33, Dai Evans wrote:
>
>
> I quite agree with the viewpoints expressed. The paternalist central command
> view however does risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
>
> The users should be in control of what they choose and use so long as it
> conforms to the required national standards. That end user choice might
> sharpen the mind set of those delivering systems.
>
> In the end we need to have certain stability in the use of a fundamental
> tool for the delivery of care.
>
> The loss of central support for Data Quality also wrankles too as the
> standard of records deteriorates and ability to sustain good quality care
> falls away [personal interest declared!]
> Dai
>
>
> **Snipped NHS Disclaimer**
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>
> --
> Sent via emis-list

--
Sent via emis-list
RE: NUG view on EMIS [message #23008 is a reply to message #23005] Tue, 13 February 2018 13:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DrDamo is currently offline  DrDamo
Messages: 349
Registered: March 2014
Location: Birmingham
Senior Member
Sorry to be slow Geoff - I see what you mean now.

However I don't agree - my feeling is that it is the EMIS system that is the problem. Rewriting the system in a manner that supports change rather than hinders change will mean that EMIS can keep up with the changing demands of the national specification. And the national specification is always going to change - we have to accept that. I don't know what EMIS was fined for, or why they failed to get the Wales contract, but I doubt it was just something minor and I am sure they will have been given time to remediate ( knowing how difficult it is to get any change through GPSoC, and how rarely NHSD flex their contractual muscles).

A system as complex as EMIS should be made up of multiple components that all plug into a central database / interface. The appearance to the end user is of one unified system but underneath each module is independent of each other and so can be changed without affecting other parts of the system. And the flip side some of the fundamental building blocks (menus, drop down lists etc) should be written once and used by every module so all modules can be updated in one code change.

I don't know how EMIS is coded but when every dialogue box, pick list etc is different there clearly isn’t a consistent approach and reusing of code. And when an update in one area has a dramatic effect on another area it clearly isn't modular programming (or at least modular programming done correctly). So developers waste time fixing bugs or trying to unpick code written years ago. Predicting how changing code in one area will affect another is difficult or impossible. Updates are a major piece of work both in developing and testing. Lots of wasted developer time.

And it's not just about the code. If you have a truly modular approach it is much easier to bring people into a team late in the process or to expand a team quickly. It is easier to change (and test) existing modules - and to roll back changes in one module (if there's a problem) whilst keeping updates in others. New functionality can be added without impacting existing work. There are also potential benefits in performance as code for a module you don't use doesn't have to be loaded.

In my opinion as long as EMIS continue firefighting in their current system, rather than making a fundamental change, they will always struggle to meet the national demands and to provide us with a stable and usable system with updates that don't break more than they fix. I cite the ongoing problems with patient online and resource publisher (amongst others) as evidence of that opinion.

Damian


**Snipped NHS Disclaimer**
>> From: emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net
>> [mailto:emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net]
>> On Behalf Of Sarah Stanley-Smith
>> Sent: 13 February 2018 08:18
>> To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
>> Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS
>>
>>
>> Surely if Emis is not fit for purpose in Wales, then it is not fit
>> for purpose in England or Scotland either?
>> Sarah
>> (5 months to retirement and counting!) Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On 13 Feb 2018, at 00:08, WILLIAMS, Damian (NHS BIRMINGHAM CROSSCITY
>> CCG) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> You are right, it is not fair on the GPs. Particularly if they
>>> choose
>> EMIS on the back of the assurance that EMIS were on a national
>> framework. I presume NWIS will be funding the migrations as well as
>> taking some responsibility for lost data and the potential clinical risks associated
>> with it. They will presumably have to pay for some kind of backup in case
>> audit trails are needed in a future legal case from a patient.
>>>
>>> Of course if those GPs were self funding they could have chosen
>>> iSoft
>> and would have found themselves in the same positron a few years ago
>> when the supplier chose to leave the primary care market.
>>>
>>> As someone else pointed out it is high time we divorced the data
>>> from
>> the front end. Then clinical system choice becomes more like choosing
>> a browser. Or even multiple 'browsers' - EMIS for clinical note
>> taking, frontdesk for appointments, SystmOne for templates and Evergreen for PFS.
>>>
>>> Damian
>>>
>>> Sent from Nine
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Paul Bromley
>>> Sent: Monday, 12 February 2018 23:08
>>> To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
>>> Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS
>>>
>>>
>>> I take on board what you are saying Damian. However, the problem is
>>> that it is the GPs who are powerless in the middle ...............
>>> and the ones that will suffer most. They carefully chose EMIS as
>>> there clinical system and invested a lot of time and effort into using it.
>>> In many cases this would have been done when systems were purchased
>>> purely for clinical use, and at a time when GPs had control and paid
>>> at
>> least 50%.
>>>
>>> I do wonder what EMIS 'failed' on. I don't know, but what if this is
>>> a non clinical area, and is more 'back-end'. As a GP in Wales I
>>> would then be very much 'cheesed off' with the fact that I was going
>>> to have to change clinical systems just because backend
>>> functionality wasn't doing what it should. I was always opposed to
>>> 100% reimbursement and loss of control regarding who owned the
>>> system. This now demonstrates that loss of control, and what can
>>> happen. Fortunately it matters not to
>> me personally.
>>>
>>> Best wishes
>>>
>>> Paul Bromley
>>>
>>> On 12 February 2018 at 14:59, WILLIAMS, Damian (NHS BIRMINGHAM
>>> CROSSCITY
>>> CCG) wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That certainly isn't an ideal situation, though you would hope that
>>>> closer management of the contract would prevent that happening.
>>>>
>>>> Still I can't see how a system that doesn't meet the requirements
>>>> can be allowed to retain the contract. If you fail CQC despite
>>>> remedial action you can't just expect to continue because
>>>> withdrawing the contract would be difficult for the patients.
>>>>
>>>> There does need to be a remedial process as a sudden system change
>>>> is in no-one's interest. My understanding (limited) of GP Futures
>>>> is that it will be better in this respect.
>>>>
>>>> It is going to take a LOT of EMIS resource to manage the change in
>>>> Wales - I hope that doesn't further degrade the service we get.
>>>> Likewise with the multi million pound fine.
>>>>
>>>> Damian
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net
>>>> on behalf of Wayne Bolt
>>>> Sent: 12 February 2018 14:50
>>>> To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
>>>> Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS
>>>>
>>>> what is really concerning though is this:
>>>>
>>>> *"The contract is effective for a four-year period from January
>>>> 2019, with the option to extend for up to a further two years. "* -
>>>> so after four to six years it could another enforced change of
>>>> system if the procurement process goes that way?
>>>>
>>>> Drayton Medical Pratice
>>>> *www.draytonmedical.nhs.uk *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12 February 2018 at 14:16, WILLIAMS, Damian (NHS BIRMINGHAM
>>>> CROSSCITY
>>>> CCG) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > I agree that it is a nightmare for the practices who now have no
>>>> > choice but to change clinical systems. Not what anyone would want.
>>>> >
>>>> > However this was a formal procurement and EMIS failed on a number
>>>> > of points that INPS and Microtest passed. Surely no one is
>>>> > suggesting that EMIS should be allowed through despite failing
>>>> > just because they are a current supplier or because it will be
>>>> > difficult to make
>> the change?
>>>> >
>>>> > With any competitive procurement any supplier who 'fails' has the
>>>> > right
>>>> to
>>>> > appeal and challenge any decisions. I have no idea if EMIS did
>>>> > this but the outcome hasn't changed. A challenge to a procurement
>>>> > decision can be long and costly so I am sure those involved at
>>>> > NWIS made this decision
>>>> with
>>>> > great care.
>>>> >
>>>> > In England there are two 'hurdles' on the horizon for all system
>>>> suppliers
>>>> > - the one year extension of GPSoC and then the new GP Futures
>> framework.
>>>> > These will not be automatic and any of the suppliers, including
>>>> > EMIS,
>>>> could
>>>> > be refused entry if they don't meet the requirements set.
>>>> >
>>>> > The past year has seen a fairly long list of problems and failures
>>>> > in the EMIS system, and an awful lot of complaining on this forum,
>>>> > so I'm not
>>>> sure
>>>> > any of us should be surprised by this. Let's hope this won't be
>>>> happening
>>>> > to us too - I definitely don't want to go through another system
>>>> > migration. However I do need a system I can rely on and that
>>>> > meets my needs.
>>>> >
>>>> > Damian
>>>> >
>>>> > ________________________________________
>>>> > From: emis-list-bounces@emisnug.net
>>>> > on behalf of Paul Bromley
>>>> >
>>>> > Sent: 09 February 2018 19:41
>>>> > To: The main EmisNUG mailing list
>>>> > Subject: Re: NUG view on EMIS
>>>> >
>>>> > This is an absolute tragedy for practices concerned. I am sure
>>>> > that we
>>>> all
>>>> > know the pain in changing systems - even if we want to. If
>>>> > enforced then
>>>> I
>>>> > hate to think what it will be like. Do those that have decided
>>>> > this
>>>> realise
>>>> > the problems for practices and the investment that they have made
>>>> > in
>>>> their
>>>> > clinic system - warts and all?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > I am old enough to remember when we only had 50% reimbursement. I
>>>> > always thought and said that we were giving up the crown jewels
>>>> > for the
>>>> remaining
>>>> > 50%. I believe like elsewhere there is a GP recruitment crisis in
>> Wales.
>>>> > This will surely make it worse from the point of retention. If I
>>>> > were 60
>>>> in
>>>> > one of these practices I would certainly be leaving rather than
>>>> > going through the pain of changing.
>>>> >
>>>> > Are there any Welsh EMIS users here that are facing this threat?
>>>> > Is there anything that we can collectively do for you?? Good Luck
>>>> > to you all for
>>>> the
>>>> > future.
>>>> >
>>>> > Best wishes
>>>> >
>>>> > Paul Bromley
>>>> >
>>>> >> On 9 February 2018 at 12:19, wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Have to indeed! This has just been released by NHWIS - see the
>>>> >> FAQ 2.8.
>>>> >> http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/956/page/94929
>>>> >>
>>>> >> --
>>>> >> --
>>>> >> Sent via the EmisNUG forum
>>>> >> --
>>>> >> Sent via emis-list
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Best Wishes
>>>> >
>>>> > Paul Bromley
>>>> > --
>>>> > Sent via emis-list
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > **Snipped NHS Disclaimer**

This message may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the
sender that you have received the message in error before deleting it.
Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in relation to its contents. To do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your co-operation.

NHSmail is the secure email and directory service available for all NHS staff in England and Scotland. NHSmail is approved for exchanging patient data and other sensitive information with NHSmail and other accredited email services.

For more information and to find out how you can switch, https://portal.nhs.net/help/joiningnhsmail

--
Sent via emis-list
Re: NUG view on EMIS [message #23009 is a reply to message #22982] Thu, 15 February 2018 09:42 Go to previous message
Support Communications is currently offline  Support Communications
Messages: 559
Registered: April 2013
Location: Leeds
Senior Member

Hi everyone,

We understand why you feel frustrated about aspects of the service that you've received over recent months, and appreciate why the developments with both NHS Digital and NWIS may then cause concern. As we've said elsewhere, the re-procurement process in Wales was a long-term review process, and the decision made by NWIS was not connected to recent service issues with NHS Digital. We were disappointed not to be chosen to provide future services to the people and patients of Wales, and we're working closely with NHS Digital to improve those aspects of our business which failed to meet our usual high standards.

We believe that EMIS Web remains industry-leading, but we've heard the feedback from our customers on this forum, on social media, and from the users who call our Support teams or speak with us face to face; we acknowledge that there have been performance and functionality issues for many of you over a period of time. We've listened to your concerns, and we made a pledge at the NUG conference last year that we would act on these.

Since then we've been focused on making the improvements that you want to see. We're fixing functionality issues and stabilising system performance. We've restructured our customer teams to better give you the help and support you expect, and we've shifted our focus away from introducing new features, to instead build a better basis for moving forwards in a changing healthcare landscape.

Over the coming weeks and months you can expect to see the results of these changes being released, starting with EMIS Web 8.0 which we began to release on controlled rollout yesterday.

Thanks,

Sean

EMIS Health.



EMIS Support
Previous Topic: PDS discrepancies
Next Topic: Snomed coding
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Aug 20 14:57:46 BST 2018

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.04029 seconds