- Michael Cross, freelance journalist (michaelcross@fastmail.fm)1
- 1 PO Box 40073, London N6 5ZJ
In February 2002, the UK government decided that an unprecedented investment in information technology was essential to achieve its plans for the NHS in England. The decision bore fruit in an information technology programme that is the world's largest both in cost—some £18bn (€26bn; $32bn) over 10 years1—and, more importantly, in ambition. The NHS national programme for information technology is attempting to create the most comprehensive electronic health records infrastructure of any healthcare system, in which multimedia records compiled at the point of care are made available to authorised users in primary, secondary, tertiary, and community care.
Ministers say the programme will connect 30 000 general practitioners and 270 acute, community, and mental health trusts to a single, secure, national system to make information available when and where it is needed, including to patients themselves.2 Four years on, this ambition is still far off. NHS Connecting for Health, the agency created last year to run the programme, admits that to date the programme has made little noticeable difference to clinicians and patients. However, it says that essential building blocks have been designed and procured, on unprecedented terms for the taxpayer, and that new systems are now being installed which will greatly improve healthcare practice.

Credit: IAN MCKINNELL/TAXI/GETTY
Criticism
This assessment is controversial. Informed criticism of the programme—leaving aside the populist view that any NHS investment in information technology is bound to be a disaster—falls into two strands. One, made most often inside the healthcare informatics community, is that the programme's central direction and political impetus has hindered rather than advanced progress. The second, made by some professional organisations and activist groups, says that the scale and proposed content of …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Ethical considerations
Published 14 February 2012
Re: Diagnosis and management of Raynaud’s phenomenon
Published 14 February 2012
Re: Raised inflammatory markers
Published 14 February 2012
Re: Physical activity for cancer survivors: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Published 14 February 2012
Smokefree cars in Wales: Laws are better
Published 14 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (8 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (8 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
How much of a social media profile can doctors have? (7 responses)
Published 23 Jan 2012