A DISASTEROUS NHS IT project - which ran £40m over budget - was held up by the Scottish Government as a "strong" example of good practice that could be copied elsewhere.
The new telecommunications system for handling patient calls to NHS 24 has been beset with problems - key information was missing from the software contract at the beginning, it was hugely delayed after failing to pass testing stages and was withdrawn last month just weeks after launch.
However, documents uncovered by The Herald show a Scottish Government "Gateway" report written at a time when the original launch date had already been scrapped described the project as "a particularly strong exemplar of good practice that would be transferable to other programmes".
The government is currently under scrutiny because a series of public sector IT projects, including a new system for Police Scotland, have run into problems
NHS 24's new £117m platform for answering patient calls and discussing and recording their symptoms was due to go live in June 2013. This date was repeatedly postponed and the technology was finally introduced in October this year, only to be suspended within a fortnight to ensure patient safety.
Three reports on the IT project were obtained using Freedom of Information legislation - although sections of them have been withheld.
The earliest document is a Gateway Review conducted by the Scottish Government in July 2013, which looked at the readiness of the technology to go live.
This appeared to give it an "amber" status - meaning successful delivery was feasible although there were significant issues. Those involved were praised.
However, by February 2014 Ernst and Young had been brought in to write a rapid independent review of the Future Programme and this report raises serious questions about the project at that stage. At one point it says: "NHS 24 appear to have little confidence left that [redacted] can ever reach the required levels of performance, however, they do remain committed to achieving a successful Go Live." Later in the report it suggests performance had improved little since the previous June.
By May 2014 another review, this time by PwC, had been carried out looking at omissions from the contract signed with the software supplier.
Dr Richard Simpson, Labour spokesman for public health and a member of the Scottish Parliament's Audit Committee - which is investigating the Future Programme, said it was "extraordinary" the project had been held up as "good practice". He called for the team behind the gateway report to be identified and for transparency about what had gone wrong throughout the process.
He said: "If we are going to learn about what has happened, then we must know exactly what went on. I understand there is commercial sensitivity, but in my view it is far too often used to conceal things which are not commercially sensitive."
A Scottish Government spokesman said: "This is a dated review, carried out at a specific point in the project on behalf of NHS24. It was held before a significant testing phase of the project had taken place. Since that point, in February 2014, the Scottish Government and NHS24 jointly commissioned Ernst & Young to undertake a review and report of the situation with the Future Programme.
“NHS24 put in place a number of programme measures in response to the recommendations of the review including, revised governance arrangements and the appointment of a dedicated experienced Programme Director to drive the project to conclusion and implementation.
“NHS 24 are undertaking a review of the issues associated with the Future Programme, with a final report in January. The Cabinet Secretary has asked Chief Nursing Officer (CNO) Prof Fiona McQueen to provide reassurance on any plans to reintroduce the new system in 2016.”
In a statement NHS 24 said they had taken on board the recommendations from the different reports. The project had "challenging technical issues" at the time of the Ernst and Young report, they said, but these difficulties were resolved.
The statement added: "While we had to roll back onto the legacy technology in November 2015, for patient safety reasons, we continue to work hard on the programme and plans will be put in place to implement the new solution during 2016 once all outstanding issues have been resolved."
They stressed the patient service remains safe and effective.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel