TPP named as CSC strategic solution

Tags: child Community CSC GP Lorenzo NME PCTs Solution South SystmOne TPP

08 May 2009

Primary care software supplier TPP has announced that it has signed an agreement with local service provider CSC, which makes SystmOne the strategic solution in the North, Midlands and East of England.

SystmOne is already widely deployed across the northern clusters and has been offered as an ‘interim’ solution by CSC since 2004.

TPP said the new agreement means SystmOne will be one of CSC’s primary care solutions which will integrate with Lorenzo “in due course”.

Neil Toner, TPP director, said the deal strengthened the alliance between TPP and CSC.

He added: “This is a long-term agreement extending until the end of the National Programme for IT’s current contracts. We’re delighted as it clarifies the strong position that TPP and SystmOne hold in the National Programme for IT and should assure both existing and future users that SystmOne will be deployed, developed and supported for the life of the National Programme.”

The company said that SystmOne has so far been deployed to 902 practices, SystmOne Community is in use or in deployment in 94% of primary care trusts in the North east and East regions. In addition SystmOne Child Health is in use or in deployment in 84% of PCTs in the same region.

Toner added: “Deployments of all modules are continuing across the NME region and TPP is also making excellent progress with GP deployments in the Southern region.”

CSC is thought to be on the brink of signing a new deal with CfH and last month Christine Connelly, the director general for informatics, announced that the IT market would be opened up in the south of England.

It also emerged last month that some PCTs in the south are already planning to take TPP’s community and child health modules and encourage practices to switch to SystmOne.

CSC told EHI Primary Care 12 months ago that it planned to integrate SystmOne with Lorenzo but said it was also still committed to building Lorenzo Regional Care to ensure the solution meets the needs of the entire NHS including primary care.

Related articles

CSC plans to integrate SystmOne into Lorenzo

Fiona Barr

Reader's Comments

Patient safety issues with SSEPRs don't go away

maryhawking@tigers.demon.co.uk

09 May 09 09:05

I've pointed out the problems with SSEPRs - single shared electronic patient records - previously, and I do find it slightly surprising that CSC should commit to forcing this "solution" onto three fifths of England just before the RCGP report on Shared Record Professional Guidance is due to be completed. We already know from the board papers of Yorkshire and the Humber SHA that they are subject to financial penalties if they fail to purchase a sufficient volume of CSC products - and that this was one of their reasons for pressing - very hard - for widespread uptake of SystmOne: the promised hospital system, Lorenzo, not being available.

It seems a pity that the future of general practice computing in England should be determined by the contracts awarded to Accenture and passed, unchanged, to CSC when Accenture departed.

Contract driven policy?

PS is the CSC plan for SystmOne to convert to SNOMED-CT from it's version of CTV3 (including those mysterious Y Codes) or will Lorenzo (if going to be integrated with SystmOne) have to change from a post-co-ordinated SNOMED-CT to CTV3 + Y Codes? It would be interesting to know - at a strategic level - what the plan is. or even if the problem has been identified as a problem.

Policy Driven Contracts

11 May 09 17:05

It is the national policy of the NHS that there should be shared electronic patient records.

While you may disagree with the policy, it seems peverse to argue that the contract with CSC demonstrates that....

"the future of general practice computing in England [is being] determined by the contracts awarded to Accenture and passed, unchanged, to CSC when Accenture departed."

Especially as all the GP practices who have chosen to move to TPP have done so by excercising their right under the GMS contract to select their system of choice.

Contract driven policy? No. Policy driven contracts

Policy on the hoof

11 May 09 21:05

The original NPfIT vision was for integrated records to support joined up care across the health and social care spectrum. The contracts have driven us to a number of islands of disparate systems with vague promises about joining it all up.

I would not be suprised for the pressure to implement community systems to come from some contract clauses about number of deployments, whilst the NHS, and public purse, does not appear to have been protected from the failure to develop promised systems for Acute hospital care.

GP systems, or the whims of GPs, are another matter. The TPP GP system appears to work rather well, and to enable PBC groups, or those wishing to run their extended hours commitments via collaboration to work together. Other GP system suppliers appear to be struggling to deliver something equivalent, and in our area, they are choosing it with a free hand.

Re: Policy driven contacts

12 May 09 16:05

'... all the GP practices who have chosen to move to TPP have done so by excercising their right under the GMS contract to select their system of choice.'

Whoever posted this clearly is unaware of, or chooses to ignore, the level of coercion (including witholding of funding for GPSoC approved systems) that has been exerted by many PCTs to induce GPs to exercise their 'freedom of choice' in favour of SystmOne. As a case in point, all APMS contracts that have been awarded by my PCT have SystmOne stipulated as a contractual condition - freedom of choice indeed!

GPSoC and APMS

13 May 09 12:05

As a point of clarification GPSoC is a feature of the GMS contract. It does not apply to APMS contracts and therefore the PCTs are able (indeed required) to take an approach which is most likely to support the national policy of integrated clinical records. This is another example of policy driving contracts and not the other way round.

You might not like the policy but it is the policy which PCTs and SHAs have to do their best to implement.

As for GPs making choices. The GMS contract requires PCTs to provide an adequate level of support to gp systems. If the PCTs use additional funding over and above the basic to incentivise moves to more integrated records that is still about GPs choosing the benefits of different systems. That is not coersion that is contractual negotiation.

Yet again you may not like the policy of integrated records but it is the policy which the PCTs have to implement.

The bottom line is about patients and all the evidence I have seen is that practices which have moved to TPP are happy with it and are using it to deliver improved patient care. Unfortunatly many of those complaining don't seem to have seen what is being achieved for the benefit of patients.

changing to systemone

30 Sep 09 18:09

all the gps i have met who have changed clinical systems have reported that the changover causes huge problems- wasted time and poor patient care too - worst when the practice has been using a system for a long time and using it well. apparently it takes 2years plus of pain. they have all said that the extent of the problems have been seroiusly underestimated by the it guys and that they have had inadequate training in the new system. given that we now have emis and vision covering more than 50% of the population with systems which do gp2gp - just why are we trying to make practices change? what is the point? integration with chiropodists??

Yes! Integration with Chiropodists..

02 Oct 09 15:10

Along with integration with dieticians, specialist nurses, acute specialists. This is called an integrated pathway for diabeties!

or with physiotherapists, occupational therapists, specialist nurses and community hospitals. This is called an integtegrated pathway for stroke care.

or with .... should I go on.

P.S. I think you should think about which GPs you are mixing with. They are a very atypical lot