Acute Change Network

1
Ensuring benefits through the transformation of
healthcare processes

• Acute Change Network
• 11th May 2007

2
Welcome to the third Acute Change Network event!
Eileen Fairclough Head of Service Implementation
and Benefits NHS London, LPfIT
3
Workshop agenda

• This morning
• Update from NHS London Programme for IT
• An overview of the BT Engagement Approach
• Acute Programme Governance NHS involvement
• Update on Acute Strategic Route Map
• KCW - Care Pathways Case Study
• This afternoon
• Early Engagement experience of St.Marys
• Discussion sessions on Early Engagement
• Event Methodology Approach

4
Icebreaker

• Please introduce yourself to two people you have
  not met before, including
• Your role
• Your involvement on the London Programme

5
NHS London Programme for IT - update

• Kevin Jarrold
• Chief Information Officer for NHS London and
• Programme Director for NHS London, LPfIT

6
London Programme for IT Update

• CCN2 Update
• NPfIT Local Ownership Programme
• Progress with deployment
• Cerner in London
• Final thoughts

7
CCN2 Progress

• Final issues resolved with BT
• London Programme Board approved it yesterday
• Final sign off scheduled for early next week
• Quick re-cap on contents of CCN2

8
CCN2 Overview (1)

• Change to main sub-contractor
• Cerner via 3 releases to all acute trusts
• CSE Servelec RiO to Mental Health and PCTs via 4
  releases
• INPS to GPs via 3 releases
• Integration of above products via 2 releases
• BT have a clear commitment to release dates and
  deployment dates

9
CCN2 Overview (2)

• Revised service commencement date 31 October
  2006 for 9 years (with option to extend by a
  further year)
• London configuration of Cerner
• Interim solutions NHS benefit in period up to
  31st October 2006
• Map of Medicine now within scope
• Improved deployment model more support

• Citrix over Citrix now supported
• File print servers provided
• Spine disconnected working now included
• Training capacity increased
• Support for early adopters
• Social care solution is being worked up
• GP option to retain EMIS to be developed

10
CCN2 Workload Implications

• The Challenge
• Move to three sub-contractors with integration
  means increased need to
• Elaborate on requirements
• Design the clinical and business process
• Configure the solution
• Test including usability

• Action Needed
• Increase NHS input into the process
• Support short term secondments
• Consider longer term approach to increase
  stakeholder input

11
CCN2 Communication

• Plan to be open and transparent about contents
  both functional and financial
• Contract schedules will be available to IT
  Directors and Finance Directors
• Chief Executive Forum being held next week with
  Medical Directors and Opps Directors also invited
• Open to further suggestions on what we need to do
  to improve visibility

12
National Programme for ITLocal Ownership
13
Main Drivers for Change

• National Audit Office Report and Public Accounts
  Committee Review
• David Nicholson wants to see change
• Negative feedback from within the NHS about
  delays to the realisation of benefits
• Continuing bad press
• Office of Government Commerce review
• Changes to LSPs in North, Midlands and East meant
  clusters needed to change

14
National Audit OfficeReport

• Two and half years into the 10 year programme the
  report recommends the procurement strategy for
• Speed of contract closure
• Success in transfer of cost of delay to suppliers
• But raises concerns about
• Impact of delay in delivery from key suppliers
• NHS ownership and commitment to deployment
• Clinical engagement

15
The NPfIT Forward Plan

• Development of the Forward Plan is being led by
  the DOH with input from
• NHS CFH
• Office of Government Commerce (OGC)
• Cabinet Office Delivery and Transformation Unit
• Have had a structured approach to evaluation of
  current position
• Interviewed circa 160 people

• Main findings
• Strong support for vision
• But changes to priorities not taken into account
• Lack of NHS leverage over contracts
• NHS supplier capacity to deliver change a key
  issue
• Supplier failure to understand federated nature
  of NHS an issue
• Delay undermining credibility
• Regional variation London NHS more positive.

16
NPfIT Review - Context

• London
• 1 SHA
• 1 NHS CFH Cluster
• 1 LSP (Circa 1bn)

• North/Midlands/Eastern
• 6 SHAs
• 3 NHS CFH Clusters
• 1 LSP and 1 software supplier (circa 3bn)
• Southern
• 3 SHAs
• 1 NHS CFH Cluster
• 1 LSP (Circa 1bn)

17
Transition Challenges

• London SHA has a new set of responsibilities to
  discharge on delivery of the NPfIT
• Will need to ensure that fit for purpose
  governance arrangements exist
• Will need to develop an organisational design and
  operating model to discharge the responsibilities

18
Governance

• A range of tasks have to be carried out by the
  SHA in partnership with Trusts and PCTs
• Process needs participation of all NHS
  organisations in London
• Two options
• Retain existing arrangements with modifications ?
• Develop new governance arrangements ?

19
Existing Governance

• London NPfIT Programme Board with sub-groups for
• Mental Health
• Primary and Community
• Acute
• Recently introduced
• Already moving in direction of Local Ownership

• But may need to
• Strengthen the membership of the boards
• Have key decisions signed off by London-wide
  chief execs groups
• Place greater emphasis on reference groups in
  which all organisations are invited to participate

20
What benefit will local ownership bring to the
NHS in London

• Transfer of staff and resource to the SHA from
  NHS CFH
• Improved control over direction of travel
• Maximise benefit to the London NHS of the
  contract with BT
• Greater flexibility to respond to emerging
  healthcare strategy for London

21
Progress with Deployment
22
Deployment Progress - Acute

• PACS delivered to 21 acute hospitals
• Homerton and Newham now supported
• 3 RO trusts tracking to plan
• 5 LC1 trusts progressing
• Additionals/Interim solutions live
• 3 of 6 theatre systems
• 2 interim Order Communication Systems
• 3 Pathology
• 3 Pharmacy stock control

23
Deployment Progress - RiO

• Mental Health
• 5 of 10 now live
• 6th on schedule for July go live date
• PCTs
• 13 of 31 now live with RiO
• Including 8 with Child Health functionality
• Further 6 in pre-deployment phase
• Plus all 10 CHIA using PCTs now planning
  migration to RiO

24
Detailed Implementation Plan

• RiO sufficient demand to meet slots for
  deployments and upgrades for MH and Community
• Planning for PACS London-wide data store in
  progress
• Acute
• Slots for deployment in 2007/8 filled
• Slots to commence in 2007/8 for deployment in
  2008/9 still to be identified

25
Cerner in London (1)

• Cerner being deployed in Southern Cluster across
  acute, mental health and community.
• RO gaps identified and enhancements being
  planned
• LC1 gaps identified and resourced for London
  configuration

26

• RO improvements
• Expanded sub-specialty list
• Appointment types
• NACS file
• Request catalogue
• Pull specimen numbering
• PACS/RIS integration
• Data extract
• Cancelled ops report
• Children at risk alert
• OP follow up details
• 18 week wait

• LC1 improvements
• Millennium core
• PAS workflow
• Medical records
• Correspondence
• Clinical workflow
• Order enhancements
• Maternity
• AE workflow
• Theatres
• Data quality reports

27
Cerner in London (2)

• RO
• Barnet and Chase Farm
• Queen Marys Sidcup
• Barts and the London.
• LC1
• Royal Free,
• Kingston,
• St Marys,
• St Georges,
• Queen Marys Roehampton

28
Cerner in London (3)

• Keen to exploit the learning from Homerton and
  Newham
• Feedback from lessons learned in the South
• A better product
• Earlier engagement with Trusts
• More support from BT especially around business
  transformation

29
Final thoughts

• End of an era
• CCN2 signed off
• NHS CFH London Cluster is no more
• Start of a new one
• Greater local ownership
• New healthcare strategy being developed for
  London
• Potential for IT to become the enabler of change
  and transformation

30
BT Engagement Approach

• Paul White, Chief Executive London NHS Programme,
  BT
• Brendan Major, BT Client Engagement Director
• David Wilson, BT Health Director of Deployment

31
BT has successfully delivered capability to 57 of
the 74 Trusts
71
21
10
13
8
14
5
3
1
1
RiO MH
RiO CH
PACS
RIS
CHIA
Theatres
eSAP
GP
Additionals
Acute PAS
32
It is a Partnership
33
Change Transformation from a CEO's perspective

• Strategic objectives
• Balancing priorities
• Synergies with other programmes
• Staff engagement, particularly clinicians
• Working with the culture
• Benefits driven
• Communication

34
Early Engagement

• Brendan Major

35
Where Does Client Engagement Fit?

• If the programme is to credibly present itself
  as an IT enabled transformation initiative and
  not simply an IT system deployment challenge we
  need to engage with Trusts
• Much earlier
• More inclusively
• More sensitively

36
The Current Programme/Trust Deployment Model is
Indigestible
Deployment
Preparation
It feels like this
It needs to feel like this
37
Acute Deployment

• David Wilson, BT Deployment

38
Clinical Transformation - people

• Clinical Leadership
• Organisational Readiness
• Communication
• Skills and Capabilities
• 5. Performance Incentives

39
Effective Transformation
Improve Patient Care Execution
Identify and Drive Improvements
Process Redesign
Benefits Realisation
Governance and Leadership
Optimise Systems Utilization
Change Management
Clinician Participation Adoption
Improve Adaptation/ Reduce Risk
Ensure Clear Accountability
40
Panel discussion- over to you for your
?
Comments
Questions
Issues
41
Refreshment break
42
Acute Programme Governance NHS involvement

• Breid OBrien, Head of Deployment
• Eileen Fairclough, Head of Service Implementation
  and Benefits
• NHS London LPfIT

43
Interim Acute Programme Board

• Chaired by Nancy Hallet, Chief Executive,
  Homerton
• Role to steer development and delivery of
  London CRS Acute solution
• Remit - Looking after the interests of the Acute
  sector eg Cerner, PICIS, Anglia, PACS
• Plan is to have broad representation from Acute
  Trusts reflecting spread of geographies and range
  of interests e.g. CE, Director level
  (Operations), IT, Clinical
• Membership being reviewed now Board is
  established.
• Input into Board is either from sub groups or
  through Chief Executives through the Chair

44
(No Transcript)
45
Business and Benefits Realisation Advisory Group
Issues Lessons Learned Recommendations
Acute Change Network
R0/LC1 Change Leads Group
Directors of Operations Forum
Benefits Reviews
46
Acute Change Network

• Share lessons learned - Trusts support each
  other in their management of change
• Identify key issues that are shared, and
  facilitate resolution through joint working
• Assist the LPfIT and BT team to make informed
  decisions about our support to you by receiving
  feedback from the change network
• Increase the NHSs overall capacity to manage
  change by helping to embed business change
  principles and skills within programmes/projects

47
Acute Change Network

• Your suggestions for the change network
• Objectives of the change network
• Composition (do we have everyone here that needs
  to be here?)
• Preferences as to meetings full day/half
  day/virtual network
• Ways to share information

Please record your responses in the activity
worksheets provided, and hand these in at the end
48
Your feedback from last time

• Change experience from R0 sites
• More on benefits
• More lessons learned from other deployments (we
  havent done any yet)
• More on timings of Cerner releases
• Feedback from Southern implementations

49
Acute Deployment Strategy Update

• Trina Adams
• BT Acute Deployment Manager

50
Impact on Release Bundle Map
Release LC0
Release LC1
Release LC2
Release LC3
Spine LC1
Spine LC2
Spine LC3
PAS R0
PAS LC1
PAS LC2
Clinicals R0
Clinicals LC1
Clinicals LC3
Clinicals LC2
Prescribing LC2
Prescribing LC3
Care Pathways LC1
Care Pathways LC2
Theatres R0
Theatres LC1
Theatres LC3
Theatres LC2
Maternity R0
Maternity LC2
Maternity LC3
Maternity LC1
AE R0
AE LC2
AE LC1
Information for Analysis R0
Information for Analysis LC1
Information for Analysis LC2
Information for Analysis LC3

• Introduction of the enhanced scope pulls LC2
  functionality forward into the LC1 release in the
  highlighted areas.

51
Acute Deployment Strategic Updates

• LC1 Release
• Scope Enhancements
• Progress Report
• Impact on Acute Bundle Map
• LC2 Release
• Configuration Design Approach
• Timeline

52
LC1 Enhancements Summary
53
LC1 Progress Report

• LC1 Scope and Design (Complete)
• Finalised LC1 scope and design
• Validated standard reference data code sets
• LC1 Domain Delivery (Complete)
• Created London Cluster master domains for LC1
  configuration
• Established the basis for the London Cluster
  SIMLAB (referred to as LCDC)
• LC1 Millennium Configuration Build (85 Complete)
• Developed updated Design Decision Matrix
  workbooks
• Developed updated Data Collection Worksheets,
  workflows
• SIMLAB Testing (In progress)
• Develop test scripts (26/4/07)
• Conduct unit testing against documented scripts
  (11/5/07)
• Conduct integration testing against documented
  test scripts (1/6/07)
• LC1 Code Delivery (Scheduled 4/6/07)

54
LC2 Project Timeline (tentative)
55
Proposed LC2 Release Team Structure
13 Work streams Critical care Clinical
Documentation Clinical Planning RRR Maternity PAS
IFA Pharmacy stock Control Meds Admin Meds
Prescribing Theatres AE CORE General rule -
Ratio Consideration one, two, one 1 Cerner per
work stream 2 CFH per work stream 1 BT per work
stream Will vary per work stream CFH working
team engages through LCDC release CFH Steering
Committee involved in scheduled events, and does
not necessarily adhere to these rules.
Empowered Trust representatives that review
design through structured events. Consultants,
directorates, and department heads.
Used as a resource for the working team,
providing input through ad-hoc and informal
communication.
The day-to-day team made up of CfH,
Trusts, BT and Cerner. Responsible for driving
the design and configuration.
A set of workflows and solutions that are a
logically-related unit
56
Kensington, Chelsea Westminster Care Community
Integrated Service Improvement Programme

• Jas Panesar
• Programme Director, KCWCC

57

• Kensington, Chelsea Westminster Care Community
  (KCWCC)
• There are approximately 426,283 people registered
  with the GPs in KCW, with 240,283 in Westminster
  and 186,000 in Kensington and Chelsea
• KCWCC is an NHS-led local partnership of NHS and
  local authority services, working together to
  improve patient care.
• The Care Community is leading a number of
  innovative change programmes to improve the
  delivery of health and social care to the
  residents of KCW
• KCWCC consists of the following Organisations
• Central and NW London Mental Health NHS Trust
• Chelsea and Westminster Hospital Foundation NHS
  Trust
• Kensington and Chelsea Primary Care Trust
• Kensington and Chelsea Social Services
• London Ambulance Service
• Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals NHS Trust
• St Marys Hospital NHS Trust
• Westminster Primary Care Trust
• Westminster Social Services

58
KCWCC Programme Organisation
KCWCC Programme Board Chair Lynda Hamlyn Chief
Executives of health social care agencies,
Multi-disciplinary Clinicians, KCWCC Programme
Director
Clinical Workstream Lead Dr Roger
Chinn Multi-disciplinary Clinicians
Programme Mangement Office
Information Governance Lead Dr Richard Rees IG
Leads, Caldicott Guardians
SAP Project Board SRO Marian Harrington PM, IT,
Clinicians, HR
NPfIT Delivery Board SRO Heather Lawrence
Clinical Lead, IT Leads
LTC COPD Project Board SRO Julian Nettel PM, IT,
Clinicians, HR
LTC Diabetes Project Board SRO Lynda Hamlyn PM,
IT, Clinicians, HR
EUC Project Board SRO Andrew Kenworthy PM, IT,
Clinicians, HR
59
(No Transcript)
60

• Re-designed patient pathways will underpin both
  commissioning and provider modernisation agendas,
  and improve the patient experience

61
KCWCC Care Pathways Case Study

• Dr Roger Chinn, KCWCC Clinical Workstream
  LeadConsultant Radiologist Chelsea
  Westminster NHS Foundation Trust

62
Clinical Perspective - Why sign up?

• Patient pathways could be improved to accommodate
  modern ways of delivering care
• ISIP could allow process and workforce issues to
  be addressed in advance
• Should prevent delivery of IT solutions into
  vacuum or relative void
• Enable improvement in absence of delivery of IT
  solutions
• Partnerships may overcome silo working
• Primary
• Acute
• Social and housing services
• 4 Clinical imperatives derived
• Areas where some ground has already been made
• Areas that hold importance in central priorities

63
Clinical Imperatives

• Long term Conditions
• Diabetes
• Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)
• Emergency Unscheduled Care
• Single Assessment Process for the Elderly

64
Long term Conditions Diabetes Chronic
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

• Develop KCWCC Integrated Care Pathways
• Protocols and guidelines
• More care in primary and community care settings
• Reduced avoidable hospital admissions
• Share all relevant information on these patients
  between all Health Care Professionals patients
• Increased Patient Empowerment
• Enables self management
• Develop joint approach to workforce development

65
Emergency Unscheduled Care

• Establish a single out-of-hours access point
• for both patients and healthcare professionals
• Reduce AE walks-ins more appropriate to Primary
  Care
• Reduce Ambulance Service Category C calls that
  result in AE attendance
• Improve efficiency and quality of EUC OOH
  services
• Improve the information sharing by EUC services
  during OOH period
• Improve the skill mix of key care professional
  groups that deliver EUC OOH services

66
Single Assessment Process

• All vulnerable/at risk elderly people should
  undergo a single assessment process
• Electronic Process (eSAP) used in all the health
  and social care organisations in KCWCC for SAP
  assessments
• Enhance information sharing

67
The Roadmap to Improvement

• As Is Process Mapping Workshops
• Multi-disciplinary workshops
• Agreed process maps
• Develop issues logs
• Indicative opportunities for improvement
• To Be Process Workshop
• Inter-agency, multidisciplinary workshop
  analysing As Is maps current issues
• Define the To Be patient pathway
• Identify potential service improvement
  opportunities
• Service Improvement Opportunities Ratified
• Inter-agency project group consider practicality
  impact of each service improvement opportunity
• Confirm those to be recommended for
  implementation
• Benefits Planning
• Inter-agency project group identify the benefits
• Select those to be performance managed,
• Agree targets, timescales and metrics
• Business Case
• Developed by PMO, quality assured by inter-agency
  project group
• Ratified by Project Board

68
Examples of Outputs

• Benefits Dependency Networks
• COPD Diabetes
• EUSC
• COPD
• Service Improvements
• Main Benefits
• Diabetes
• Service Improvements
• Main Benefits
• OOH
• Service Improvements
• Main Benefits

69
KCW LTC Integrated Change Programme Benefits
Dependency Network
70
EUSC Integrated Change Programme Benefits
Dependency Network v0.8
71
COPD Service Improvements
72
COPD Main Benefits
Patient Safety
Accessible responsive Care
Clinical Cost Effectiveness
Governance
Patient Focus
Projected financial values available from Jas
Panesar
73
COPD Main Benefits
74
Diabetes Service Improvements
75
Diabetes Main Benefits
Patient Safety
Accessible responsive Care
Clinical Cost Effectiveness
Governance
Patient Focus
76
Diabetes Main Benefits (Continued..)
77
OOH Service Improvements
78
OOH Main Benefits
Patient Safety
Accessible responsive Care
Clinical Cost Effectiveness
Governance
Patient Focus
79
Challenges to the Process

• Care community is an artificial coalition
• All parties have many other key partnerships
• Ambivalent commitment from partners
• At institutional level
• At grass roots level
• Evolving priorities
• Payment by result and commissioning appeared
  during the process
• Meeting targets can cut across other developments
• Partnerships are meant to be something new
• Not just a meeting of organisations
• Shared priorities are sound principles
• In practice they are hard to generate
• Benefits derived may be distant to resource input
  
• Possibly outside care community

80
My perspective

• This is not generally new work it is building on
  current activity
• but it is empowering stalled processes
• Powerful mechanism to draw the Care Community
  towards alignment
• ICP for COPD
• Urgent care networks
• Common themes apparent
• Information sharing in smart fashion ( IT
  enabled?)
• Workforce development

81
High Level Lessons Learned

• Change Methodology
• ISIP is very resource intensive but as a
  cross-agency structured planning tool - it does
  work!
• Programme Governance
• Top level Programme Board is a mandatory
  pre-requisite for implementation of
  cross-organisational change
• Clinical Leadership
• Crucial multi-disciplinary group with delegated
  authority to agree best practice and provide
  clinical assurance to board
• Information Governance
• Key to getting organisations to agree information
  sharing protocols between each other and the
  public
• Resources
• Organisations lack capacity to manage
  cross-agency programmes
• Need dedicated CC-wide Programme Management
  Office and budget
• Timeline
• It takes years to develop cross-agency strategic
  organisational objectives implement
  cross-organisational change
• IT Enabled Change
• Cannot implement Integrated Care Pathways without
  IT to enable communication and coordination
  across organisational boundaries
• Benefits Led
• Integrated working requires development of
  business cases to work together
• Tracks the delivery of benefits.
• Lean Sigma

82
Lunchtime!
83
Early Engagement experience of St. Marys

• Rachel Barlow, General Manager for Clinical
  Diagnostics
• Elisabeth Hewson-Hesketh, Change Lead Mona
  Illari, BT

84
Pre-Engagement - Background
2007
2008
Jan
Jan
Feb
Mar
Dec
Nov
Feb
Mar
Sep
Jul
Apr
Aug
May
Jun
Oct
Apr
May
12th
1st
4th
Early Engagement
E 1
To Be Processes Data Collection
E 2
Preparation
E 3
Training
Support
85
GMs Overview of Early Engagement

• Communication
• Timing
• Content
• Planning and resource implications
• Timing
• As Is
• Event 1
• Data Collection Worksheets (DCWs)

86
GMs Overview of Early Engagement

• Relationships
• Planning / Programme and Managers
• Work As Usual
• NHS Targets
• Objectives
• Planning Blight (existing systems)

87
CommunicationsPlanningStakeholder and As is
Meetings
88
Positives

• The outputs were completed on time
• An Excellent Trust Profile was created
• Trust wide Communications has been established
• Good relations have been established between Team
  and Managers
• Good relationship between Team and BT
• Programme is on schedule
• Early adopter test site for LC1

89
Time and Planning
90
Discussion Session Early Engagement
Carol Day, Consultant NHS London LPfIT
91
Discussion session

• Following on from what you have heard today
• How can we get the best from the early engagement
  approach?
• What will this mean for the way we engage with
  stakeholders during this early phase?
• 20 minutes to discuss in the group and then 5
  minutes each to present back

92
Event Based Methodology and Approach -
experience from Barnet and Chase Farm R0

• David Kretschmer, Project Manager, Barnet Chase
  Farm Hospital

93
Barnet Overview

• Two main sites plus peripherals
• 450 beds, 2000 users
• Deploying R0 PAS, AE and elements of Theatres,
  Maternity
• Not utilising R0 Clinical Orders for Go Live

94
Where We Are - Timeline

• Event 1 10th 13th Oct 2006
• Event 2 5th - 9th Feb 2007
• Event 3 2nd 4th May 2007
• Go Live Gate 10th July 07
• Deployment testing starts 09/05
• End user training starts 21/05

95
Event 1

• Aims and objectives
• Initial demo of system
• Explanation of DCW process
• Setting of timelines for data collection
• Explanation of work to be done before next Event
• Lessons learned
• Open the Event with clear definition of purpose
  and timescales
• Re-iterate DCW timescales at opening and all
  breakout sessions
• Close each session with a wrap up
• Document raised issues for follow up prior to
  next Event

96
Event 2

• Aims and objectives
• Demo of partial build
• Setting of timescales for data collection
• Explanation of work to be done before next event
• Lessons learned
• Plan session in advance, work collaboratively to
  agree content for demos and breakout sessions
  dry runs were particularly useful
• Re-iterate DCW timescales at opening and all
  breakout sessions
• Close each session with a wrap up
• Document raised issues for follow up prior to
  next Event
• Ensure issues raised during Event 1 are either
  closed or are able to be demonstrated at Event 2
  (circulate FAQ log prior to Event)
• Plan sessions carefully parallel sessions may
  limit attendance of key staff

97
Event 3

• Aims and objectives
• Demonstration and sign off of final build
• Explanation of DCW final submission timescales
• Lessons learned
• Plan session in advance, work collaboratively to
  agree content/scripts for demos and breakout
  sessions dry runs were particularly useful.
  This was a real success for our Event 3
• Present process overview at start of Event and
  ensure clear delineation between data collection
  and local process activities
• Re-iterate DCW final submission timescales at
  opening and all breakout sessions
• Document raised issues for follow up, pay
  attention to those that impact on process sign
  off and training localisation
• Ensure issues raised during Event 2 are either
  closed or are able to be demonstrated at Event 3
  (circulate FAQ log prior to Event)
• Plan sessions carefully parallel sessions may
  limit attendance of key staff
• Ensure attendance from key hospital staff

98
Overall Summary

• What Worked
• Pre-planning dry runs
• Collaborative working both to plan and run Events
• Logging of raised issues in a clear and easy to
  track fashion
• Trust ownership of process presentations and
  queries (Event 3)
• What Didnt
• Failure to be clear in presentation of data
  collection timescales and amount of work required
• Poor joint planning (this demonstrably improved
  for latter Events)
• Follow up of issues from Event to Event
  (circulation of FAQ log before Events 2 and 3
  mitigates)
• Sense of ownership of demonstrations by vendor
  constrained presentation
• Presenters did not have an understanding of the
  health environment or Trust processes

99
Over to you for your
?
Comments
Questions
Issues
100
Workshop Wrap-up
Carol Day, Consultant, NHS London LPfIT Eileen
Fairclough, Head of Service Implementation and
Benefits, NHS London LPfIT
101
Workshop Wrap-up

• Further questions?
• Next workshop September 2007
• Feedback forms

102
Thank you!