Suspended Fujitsu exec tells MPs NPfIT needs leadership

The senior manager at Fujitsu who said the National Programme for IT was in danger of delivering “a camel, and not the racehorse that we might try to produce”, has told a parliamentary committee that this can only be solved with more ‘visionary and proactive leadership from the NHS.’

Andrew Rollerson, who was credited as ‘formerly practice lead of the healthcare consultancy at Fujitsu’ , told the Commons Public Accounts Committee that he had faith in NPfIT but felt some issues needed correcting first.

“I believe certain elements [of the programme] that need to be deployed could be done better. The current track for NPfIT can be achieved, but it is ambitious and risky.”

He compared the national programme to the space programme in the United States. “The Americans paid huge costs for that programme and were concerned at these, but once it was unveiled and it worked, they were euphoric. This programme is on a similar scale to the space project, in my view, it’s not just about the single patient record.”

Rollerson told the committee that he was not aware of Computer Weekly’s intention to publish a controversial presentation he made last month until the day before the magazine published its edition. He has since been suspended from his duties by the company, pending an internal inquiry which could lead to disciplinary procedures.

He revealed to the committee that Fujitsu, local service provider for the Southern cluster, had found NPfIT a difficult project to manage.

“There has been ongoing debate in Fujitsu about the situation with the national programme,” he said.

Rollerson blamed the delays in the national programme on resistance from trusts to go live with systems that had come under scrutiny from others.

“There is already resistance from trusts, and there will be more if systems are just deployed on an IT path. It is essential that trusts are engaged with procurements, it could be true that trusts would be happier if they got the systems they actually want but I believe that such a fragmented approach would not have led to what we are about to achieve.”

He added that the programme would not be any more successful if IT departments were left to procure and deploy systems themselves.

“If NPfIT was left to IT departments to control, it would fail because the end users would not be engaged. If we’re not careful the driver will become the technology itself.”

Rollerson spent all of his time away from the hearing surrounded by senior colleagues from Fujitsu. He told the committee that he felt reporting in Computer Weekly was out of context from what he thought was a presentation intended to be supportive of the national programme.

He acknowledged that he did actually say what was reported by the magazine, but said he was discomforted by later coverage suggesting that he was a heroic whistleblower. This included reader comments read out to him in the PAC session taken from E-Health Insider’s coverage of the presentation.

Despite not being a developer himself, he dismissed concerns from a committee member that his presentation was a “marketing gimmick”. Instead, he told the committee that in his decade with the company, he had been in daily contact with developers chosen for the project himself and has seen and learnt the issues first-hand.

Asked why the LSP had not implemented in the 12 trusts it told the PAC it would by October 31 last year, Rollerson said Fujitsu had to work on changes from its initial supplier IDX and ensure Cerner was a success.

“Subsequently, the Cerner system has been modified to meet requirements and deployment projects are under way in many trusts. There have been issues with data migration, reporting and printer sharing which trusts have needed to be addresses before go-live.

“The implementation timescale has been drawn out more than what was structured, but we have now put in five systems and the momentum has picked up. The rest of the trusts waiting for R0 should receive a system over the next few months.”

He welcomed proposals for a catalogue of additional suppliers, but said it would not affect the LSP’s role in the NPfIT.

“A panel of approved suppliers is a potential way forward, but trusts can already contract through current suppliers for additional services already.”

The ideal way forward he added would be for “an open consultation between supplier and CfH [Connecting for Health]” which “is absolutely required.”

He added that the national programme “requires some innovative thinking and some structure to succeed in the long term. It would be naïve to assume that systems will go well in the early stages.”

Using another analogy, he said that it was like designers at Boeing who were considering replacing the 747 with a jumbo jet, before realising that a new design would be a much better and effective design for everyone involved – CfH should look at NPfIT in the same sort of light as this.

Rollerson said that his presentation was approved by Fujitsu and he did not believe that his comments have damaged the credibility of what should be a huge success.

The hearing was the second into the National Programme for IT by the House of Commons PAC following the National Audit Office Report, The National Programme for IT in the NHS, published on 16 June 2006.