TPP moves on secondary care

Tags: Community Mental Health PAS Social care Solution TPP

01 Jul 2009

TPP has launched a series of SystmOne modules covering acute hospitals, community hospitals, mental health, social services and out-of-hours care.

Its new products include SystmOne Acute Hospital, which will include a full patient administration system, order comms, 18 week wait functionality, discharge summaries, multi-resource scheduling and ‘departmentals’ including maternity.

TPP said Acute Hospital was due to go live shortly, as were its modules SystmOne Community Hospital, SystmOne Social Services and SystmOne Mental Health.

It said it had launched modules covering out of hours call centres and primary care centres in April and that these were now deployed to deliver the West Yorkshire Urgent Care Single Point of Access Service. Several other deployments in out of hours care are due to go live in the next few weeks.

Charlotte Knowles, TPP director, said the company had worked with clinicians across secondary care, social services, mental health to develop the products.

She added: “It is not unusual for secondary care organisations to use a combination of software systems, plus some old paper processes, to perform simple tasks that SystmOne by itself can do much more efficiently.

"It's great to see their reaction when we present one single system that does more than all their existing systems put together. The potential for service transformation that SystmOne brings is phenomenal."

For hospitals that do not wish to replace their PAS all at once, but may wish to use particular functionality, such as 18 week waits, the company is offering an alternative solution called SystmOne Lite.

The company adds: “This solution sees SystmOne interfacing with the existing PAS so that information is passed from the PAS to SystmOne and the organisation can use SystmOne for any additional functionality not available within the PAS.”

The company said it could not provide any information on how the launch of TPP Acute Hospital would fit in with Lorenzo Regional Care, the strategic solution in the North, Midlands and East, where SystmOne modules have been selected as a strategic solution for primary and community care.

The company said the new products have been developed in-house by TPP’s software engineers and would create a complete patient record with information entered at any healthcare setting available to the appropriate staff at other organisations.

Doug Scott, associate director of informatics for North East Lincolnshire Care Trust Plus, said he had been working with TPP to develop its system for social services.

He said: “We can bridge the gap between health and social care, delivering the electronic social care record, without requiring a separate add-on system that sits on top. With SystmOne, we can manage a holistic record that supports the whole care pathway, and we can also access performance information about the service."

The launch of the new modules by TPP follows the unveiling last week of EMIS Web.

Link

TPP www.tpp-uk.com

Fiona Barr

National prison contract for TPP (29 Jun 2009)
CSC to supply SystmOne under GPSoC (23 Jun 2009) (5)
TPP named as CSC strategic solution (08 May 2009) (7)
TPP reaches 10m patients and plans more (05 Dec 2008)

Reader's Comments

CSC will have backup if iSOFT fail

01 Jul 09 10:07

This sounds like good news for CSC who will have a backup software developer available if iSOFT / Lorenzo fail to deliver.

Lets' hope the SystmOne acute user interface is a little less cluttered than the SystmOne primary care offering. Maybe a smattering of NHS CUI guidelines would help.

Custom

01 Jul 09 12:07

I have been involved with the NpfIT since 2003, and prior to this, worked on several pas and community systems.

Having worked with TPP community product for the last 2 years, its a joy to work with as compared to the LSP's offering of "current and previous" supplier choices.

Comments from users, are positive, user friendly and quick. The previous comment about it being overcrowded or too busy on screen is valid, but it is completely customisable either by the user of from an organisational standard.

I have worked with Cerner, IDX, and BT amongst others, and TPP (in my opinion) is the best system for use and functionality.

It also makes a mockery of what the NpfIT has attempted to do for the last 6 years!!!

Strategic Viewpoint?

01 Jul 09 14:07

A company like this that is working so closely with CSC must have to make their strategy known to them. So CSC now have 2 products in their portfolio (Lorenzo & TPP) which are strategically trying to do all things? What does this say about the CSC/CfH strategy overall? Besides, when one company tries to do all things it usually ends up doing them all moderately at best, so this announcement worries me. We are better to retain an approved portfolio of products in the UK separated into 3 distinct markets Acute / GP / Community Health & Social Care and then build the correct interface standards and key touchpoints. We must be careful not to completely lose all competition and innovation in IT in this country. This is a dangerous step (as is Lorenzo) in this direction.

An acute admission...

02 Jul 09 10:07

This scenario might be familiar to front line acute clinicians.

A patient is ill out of normal EMIS surgery time. They are visited by the OOH physician who uses Adastra software to chart visit details. The patient is admitted to the local A+E and details and progress are entered onto the hospital Symphony (Ascribe) A+E system. The patient is then admiitted to an acute medical ward and their care continues on the newly installed Lorenzo system (orders and results only).

At discharge their discharge summary details are then sent to the NHS Spine (BT) database which can be accesssed by the GP EMIS system (no seamless link) to complete the care encounter.

Does anyone else see a problem with this common scenario?

What clinicians want / need is a single community wide integrated system capable of supporting the clinical needs of the patient. Not the dangerous fragmentation of the current situation.

An acute admission...

02 Jul 09 16:07

No. If this lot can concentrate on standards for innerconnectivity then there would be absolutely no problem. Having best of breed software for different clinical environments is the best solution - although I'd accept that having e.g. no more than 5 'approved solutions' per domain is advisable. I would suggest that a greater danger is that those companies will essentially create a monopoly across all clinical care settings meaning that in the longer term we will all suffer. Why can we not learn this lesson? We have seen it happen in every other industry this government has allowed to self-regulate - that's what will essentially happen here beside the government's best intentions - it won't be any different in this case. Meanwhile, lots of innovative (often British) small companies and jobs are consigned to the scrapheap and 5 years on we will regret the day we allowed this all to happen, because by then, there will be no way back. The only real beneficiaries in the current scenaro will be the Directors and shareholders of TPP, iSoft etc instead of Fred the Shred and his cronies.

Yes...

02 Jul 09 19:07

YES...If a "local health service" decide they want a fully integrated primary and secondary care IT system from a single supplier then they should be able to procure one according to a detailed OBS. There are several suppliers who have the technical ability to do this apart from TPP.

There will probably have to be some consolidation and "merging" of primary and secondary care suppliers but I think this has been inevitable for some time.

Just think of the safety, administrative efficiencies and combined reporting benefits such a system would offer.

In fact, why not just have ONE local healthcare provider which manages both primary and secondary care services. Why do we have to have so much inefficiency and duplication of effort???

"details to follow shortly"

maryhawking@tigers.demon.co.uk

02 Jul 09 20:07

As you know, I like to be sure of my facts before commenting - but this time it is really difficult!

The TPP website gives a phone number if you want to purchase - but says "details to be available shortly".

It seems improbable that a GP clinical system could be adapted to supply all the functions in the news release (OOH is basically a Command and Control system, Acute Care is incredibly comples, with no previous involvement in electronic records and no experience of Coding ).

Could we have some more information before dismissing this news release as being premature ?

TPP Functionality

03 Jul 09 08:07

I am concerened that such announcements are more about product placement rather that product sutability. Is this a responce to the increased pressure CSC may be feeling from the "success" of RiO outside the origional LSP region in London.... my biggest concern is that this is a responce to market conditions rather than customer needs. So if anyone is using TPP in a MH setting and would like to comment about the progress they are making I would welcome the feedback.

Focus on the problem

03 Jul 09 08:07

Forget the politics and the philosophy, TPP appear to have given us the thing we all want - a joined up record across primary and secordary care. We would all be delighted if the other software suppliers (by whatever means) delivered the same result.

Obviously TPP will benefit financially by delivering the NHS's goal and obviously some of those who are currently benefiting will see their rewards diminish as they fail to deliver. There are clearly some vested interests in the current model and unsurprisingly they will want things to stay the same.

I look forward to the other suppliers stepping up to the mark and delivering (not marketing) software that will help clinicians.

Fascinating experiment

cunpr@globalnet.co.uk

03 Jul 09 09:07

Fascinating to watch how these two approaches work. EMIS Web is a core record for GPs that others can view and others can contribute to via a standardised gateway. TPP System One is a single record with "modules" that create user specific views of that single record. One is the central universal record model the other the interoperability model.

Lets see how they get on.

Regards

Paul C

G is 'spot on'

03 Jul 09 10:07

From Gs comment 8 - TPP functionality

"I am concerned that such announcements are more about product placement rather that product suitability"

I think many would agree that Gs assessment is probably correct - reality is however that I don't know - who does? Clearly the folks that have been approached to provide sound bytes to verify the announcements seem to be convinced - that's what market driven companies do however so we need to watch and see. It's a bold statement and clearly delivered to shake up the market.

an earlier comment is also important here:

"Meanwhile, lots of innovative (often British) small companies and jobs are consigned to the scrapheap and 5 years on we will regret the day we allowed this all to happen, because by then, there will be no way back. "

This is also key - companies with niche products ARE extremely vulnerable and the procurement cycles and total confusion in the market makes being in this space almost impossible - The LSP model has created such an uneven playing field that it is no longer about products and service (necessarily) but about who can shout the loudest and convince purchasers that they are making the 'safest' decision - this leads to herd mentality similar to the growth seen over the last decade in others sectors to purchase general purpose ERP solutions often at huge implemnetation and customisation cost .

TPP going it alone so to speak and looking to 'rip and replace' is an aggressive (some might say spoiling) strategy and one that may be aimed at attracting investors as well as customers from a strategic perspective. Indeed the announcement of a number of 2C modules could just be a reaction to the growth in confidence of an EMIS Web solution that appears to take a far more consiliatory approach towards integration and interoperability.

For many industries inter-op has been the winning formula in the long term.

I'd disagree in part with Paul Cundy that this is a "fascinating experiment" - we've been through that at high cost over recent years - the time for experimentation is over - pragmatic; cost effective solutions that deliver the improvements in care, safety and efficiency that are self evidently possible with properly implemented systems should now be beyond that.

Simple: Does it work? - How does it work? How sustainable is the solution? How effective is the solution and at what OVERALL cost and level of disruption.

One patient, one record...

03 Jul 09 11:07

There seem to be too many people out there who are living in the Healthcare IT past. Web based (thin / zero client) solutions are here to stay. There is no reason why a primary care clinician or a secondary care clinician cannot contribute to the same patient's medical record.

There might need to be some restriction on how much detail is added at each "consultation" so the record doesn't become bloated but that can be addressed with training and smart coding systems.

The future of healthcare IT is "one patient" "one healthcare record". Clinicians want this, most patients want this, TPP have realised this and any companies who try to argue otherwise to protect their out-dated technology will have to adapt very quickly or be replaced by their more modern and agile competitors.

On experiments...

03 Jul 09 12:07

At the outset of the NPfIT experiment the (internally explicit) assumption was that GP's would eventually use specific modules of an hypertrophied GE/iSoft/[whatever] monopoly hospital system in their surgeries - and the old diversity of primary care systems would disappear. There would be centralised custody of the electronic medical record.

It is ironic therefore that (although TPP and EMIS do take different approaches) they are both primary care suppliers encroaching on the territory of hospital record systems.

Much of the patient record always has been in primary care - so this may be the lesser of two dysfunctional outcomes. But it is perhaps still dysfunctional.

The situation underlines the abject failure of CfH secondary care systems to deliver compelling clinical functionality i.e. electronic clinical notes, results, order comms, prescribing, decision support, clinical audit that are commonplace in primary care - despite these being deployed across the World in a variety of hospital systems (including of course Millenium) as well as islands of excellence in the NHS (e.g. Wirral, Chelsea and Westminster) since the 1990's.

The poster in scenario 4 has it exactly right: unless there is a monopoly GP supplier in a locale - secondary care clinicians may be obliged to dip in and out of diverse GP record systems with diverse functionality, interfaces, terminologies etc.

Apart from the training and ergonomic nightmare - this may perpetuate the problem that "my patient's notes are held by fourteen different NHS organisations and I'm not sure what might be in any of them"

Also will clinically oriented primary care systems hit the buffer when it comes to enterprise scheduling, LIMS and RIS interfaces etc? There is also the matter of supporting the very different and arcane reporting requirements of NHS secondary care.

What must be reassuring is that the cost of these pilots is tiny - and they have achievable and clearly defined benefits (even if they are local hillocks rather than the high peaks of distant mountains).

Finally there is strong grass root support with direct input by real system users. The projects embed flexible iterative development - they do not regard original requirments and contracts as 'perfect' and thus moving a menu item two pixels to the right will not require a contract change notice and ministerial sign off.

Best of luck to them!

Joined up working

steve.fuller@nhs.net

04 Jul 09 17:07

So all we need now everyone, is for TPP to be able to link with EMIS web and a lot of people will be very happy....and some wont be , but you can't please everyone.

So what?

thomas.jenner@nhs.net

10 Jul 09 15:07

To me it appears that there is nothing really said in this article except that they intend to release a secondary care suite of applications and that they have announced it with suitable timing to steal some thunder from EMIS Web. Kind of a backhanded compliment to EMIS if only it were possible to take such a thing seriously and not really worth getting excited about just yet.

At least it looks like they appear to have funded these developments out of their own coffers rather than 'piloting' beta software at an NHS organisation's expense. Perhaps though that is yet to come?

Great news for acute hospitals ..................

11 Jul 09 13:07

When is this product to be implemented and which will be the first such hospital?

Especially for the processing of In-patient, Out-patient and Accident & Emergency treatments?