This just arrived!
BT wins health contract down under
BT has made significant strides in the Australian health care market after winning a contract to provide BT Health Sentry - a clinical risk management system -to the country's National E -Health Transition Authority (NEHTA).
The deal is a joint effort between BT Health and BT Australasia and builds on a previous contract where BT was required to audit NEHTA's clinical safety programme.
BT Health head of clinical risk management, Martin Ellis, said: "BT Health has a world class clinical risk management capability.
"We have delivered to the exacting requirements of the NHS National Programme for IT and contributed to the development of international standards and are now growing our profitable clinical risk management business.
"Our capability forms a cornerstone of BT Health's value in the market and is a key differentiator."
Secondment
BT says the deal represents an important next step into the health market within Australia.
BT Health will provide NEHTA with a licence for Sentry, consultancy to support its implementation, and the secondment of an interim clinical safety officer from BT Australasia to NEHTA.
The federal and state governments of Australia have given NEHTA the task of identifying and fostering the development of the technology necessary to deliver the best e-health system.
Martin said that by assisting NEHTA to establish this central clinical risk management function, he hopes Sentry will be recommended across Australia - opening the market for future business.
The press release is here:
http://www.btplc.com/Health/MediaandIndustry/Newsboard/Contractdownunder/index.htm
This is just staggering and is just an insult to all the clinicians who are familiar with clinical risk and e-Health in Australia.
Sorry to be a bit ‘jingoistic’ but we have plenty of expertise in this area at home.
As for NEHTA’s choice – where is the release that explains their process in awarding this work outside Australia?
Did anyone see a tender for this work that I missed?
We all need to remember that the National Program for Health IT in the UK, while a very good thing, is hardly blemish free.
Just what is the need and requirement Australia can't meet in this regard - having one of the best and safest health systems in the world - admitting it could still be better.
Heck even.
David.
3 comments:
"This is just staggering and is just an insult to all the clinicians who are familiar with clinical risk and e-Health in Australia."
Well if that is so perhaps NEHTAs Clinical Lead state should state his position - he either agrees with you or he doesn't. It is possible (who would know) that he has not been privvy to this development with BT but then, on the other hand, he may have been the one who championed it through NEHTA.
It is a development which impacts all clinicians as you say, be they GPs or specialists, so it is reasonable to expect their peak bodies (like the AMA and RACGP) to promptly put out a statement which either supports this development or states their position to the contrary unambiguously. Don't be surprised if they express concerns in support of your view.
You would expect BT Health to have a world class clinical risk management capability after all the time and money that has been expended in the UK on the NPFIT. Someone must have something good worth adopting don’t you think? I think you might be overly critical. As the roots of our health system are derived from the UK don't you agree it is probably better to have an alliance with the UK health system as opposed to the US system?
Of course how far such an alliance goes is another question altogether. Could BT be hoping that with a foot in the door it is a front runner for taking over a lot of the responsibilities that NEHTA currently has responsibility for like secure messaging, provider directories, UHI hosting and other core activities?
Maybe the government see BT as a good solution for providing all the basic IT infrastructure for health. How would that fit with the Government’s plans for reforming the health system?
Where is the evidence of the process that says OZ does not have the expertise needed?
Again we are just the subject of arbitrary unexplained rubbish.
David.
Post a Comment