1 / 21

Bromley PCT

Bromley PCT. Deployment of Connecting for Health PACS A Programme Manager’s viewpoint Geoff Broome. Agenda. Context and roles PACS: Why bother? Lessons and challenges What was hard work What would we do differently What we could have been better at Questions.

vachel
Download Presentation

Bromley PCT

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Bromley PCT Deployment of Connecting for Health PACS A Programme Manager’s viewpoint Geoff Broome

  2. Agenda • Context and roles • PACS: Why bother? • Lessons and challenges • What was hard work • What would we do differently • What we could have been better at • Questions

  3. Projects in context – old world Supplier Trust Your project Requirements Responses and delivery Approval and performance management Support and standards SHA Information Authority

  4. Projects in context – new world Trust Department of Health Legacy supplier Your project Strategic Health Authority Local Service Provider (LSP) Connecting for Health (CfH) Cluster LSP supplier

  5. Projects in context – new world – it gets worse! Trust Department of Health Legacy supplier Your project Strategic Health Authority Local Service Provider (LSP) Connecting for Health (CfH) Cluster LSP supplier

  6. Context and roles (1) • PACS was an afterthought in national programme • no Trust level input to negotiations • anything in “too hard/ risky” or “can’t assess” column given to Trusts • Trusts categorised as S/M/L • CCA role • between supplier and Trust • contractual risk and margin management • had to sign off changes without knowledge of context

  7. Context and roles (2) • Cluster role • was CCAs “client” • programme management with CfH interests driving them • Trust role • bigger than anticipated • not always clear • negotiated by others

  8. Context and roles (3) • Philips role • supplier with hands tied behind back • forced to work through CCA • no direct contact with the Trust allowed

  9. PACS: Why bother? (1) • Strategic flexibility/ position • to grow, distribute diagnostic services • better (more multi-disciplinary) practice • ease of getting others involved • many risks held outside Trust level • Patients want (expect) it • may influence GPs referring behaviour • Clinicians wanted it • decision support system • better (flexible) working conditions for staff (recruitment/ retention) • Qudos

  10. PACS: Why bother? (2) • It is working and is free to air (albeit with large project costs) • Will differentiate Trusts that have it as “forward thinking” for a while at least • Ultimately will improve departmental efficiency with knock on effect in wider hospital • investigations/ radiology department employee • cancelled appointments/ repeat tests due to mislaid images • Average Length of Stay (ALOS)

  11. PACS: Why bother? (3) • If you are not doing anything else you will learn about the programme • Some of the lessons are being learnt and should make later projects easier!

  12. What was hard work (1) • Agreeing plan (inc. technical details) and who owns it • roles, governance, configuration management • Getting through CCA/ cluster to the supplier • many more relationships to be managed • Educating CCA about the NHS • role of doctors and the need to listen to them • clinical risks and why we try and minimise them

  13. What was hard work (2) • Educating CCA (in particular) about the need to get user acceptance for systems to work • Getting past the “contractual” in order to deliver an acceptable local solution • Stopping them “presumptively closing” re acceptance and moving on to new projects • managing the move to later phases • support in a business as usual world

  14. What was hard work (3) • Identifying all users and roles • Gaining respect for role of Project Board and ensuring that suppliers and cluster do not circumvent it

  15. What would we do differently (1) • Engage non-Radiology users earlier • Think about partner relationships which may be impacted • especially if you are a supplier of diagnostic services • Have better test plans and insist on them • Engagement of operational management earlier and in more detail, especially re workflow design

  16. What would we do differently (2) • Engagement of information governance specialists earlier to ensure access policies and disaster recovery issues are tackled • Agree business plans with clear funding sources and contingencies before the project starts • including backfill • Think about how junior doctor rotation should be managed vis a vis training

  17. What we could have been better at (1) • Analysing Trust side responsibilities and ensuring we had the funds and capability to deliver • Communications especially outside Radiology • Allocating dedicated training facilities • Watching our audit trail and ensuring good configuration management on our side

  18. What we could have been better at (2) • External relationship building • differentiating the must win battles from nice to haves • being prepared to help external parties • Getting specification nailed down, changes were difficult to agree, caused delays and were expensive

  19. Summary – take home messages (1) • Insist on role as customer but don’t try to fight on all fronts at once • try to understand and come to terms with the supplier/ cluster/ SHA/ CfH side • use PRINCE2 to make sure that suppliers stay focussed on your agenda and managerial attention on issues is sustained • keep the focus on your Project • Make sure you manage your own side well, do not give them weapons • be persistent and be prepared to repeat yourself or change audience • do not select purely “administrative” project managers

  20. Summary – take home messages (2) • Pick strong and knowledgeable “Senior User(s)” or “Business Change Managers” • expose all external parties to vociferous but articulate users • listen to them, but be willing to challenge appropriately in right setting • It’s our programme let’s fix it

  21. Questions ?

More Related