Cookie policy notice

By continuing to use this site you agree to our cookies policy below:
Since 26 May 2011, the law now states that cookies on websites can ony be used with your specific consent. Cookies allow us to ensure that you enjoy the best browsing experience.

This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Care.data 'looks unachievable', says Whitehall watchdog

Care.data looks unachievable and the project as a whole may need to be re-assessed, according to a report from the national watchdog on major government projects.

The Major Project Authority - which assesses all ongoing projects across government - has branded care.data with a ‘red’ delivery confidence assessment in their annual report for 2014-15, published on Thursday.

This is the most severe risk rating and indicates that ‘successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable’.

NHS England officials have said progress has been made since the MPA report was compiled and latest updates give slightly more favourable prospects.

It is the latest blow to the scheme, after NHS England paused it for six months in February 2014 – days before it was due to rollout nationally - for a major overhaul and to ‘build awareness’ of the scheme’s benefits.

The red rating signifies ‘there are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The project may need re-scoping and/or its overall viability reassessed.’

The MPA report found the major failing was that NHS England had not yet sufficiently clarified and agreed the scope of care.data, or produced a business plan.

It also calls for better planning of the risks of care.data and how it might impact on other projects, stating: ‘Further enhance programme planning and risk management to ensure dependencies on other national programmes are well understood and managed.’

This includes news earlier this year that 700,000 patients who objected to wider data sharing, during the original launch of care.data, have had those objections over ruled because implementing them would also have prevented those who had objected from receiving invitations to cancer screenings and referrals.

Additionally no budget information has yet been made available for the national scheme, or lifetime costs of the project have been provided.

The MPA report acknowledges that the programme has addressed significant issues that were identified earlier in the programme, such as appointing a senior responsible owner for the scheme.

A spokesperson for NHS England said: ‘This is an old report from eight months ago and since then a lot of work has been done on the programme. A subsequent review undertaken in February of this year reported the care.data programme as amber/ded reflecting the progress made. The programme continues to make progress.’ 

This comes just weeks after the pilot scheme in Blackburn and Darwen CCG annouced it was restarting.

 

 

Readers' comments (17)

  • How many millions has this wasted????

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Surprise surprise another epic public sector IT failure.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If someone had listened to primary care views earlier on, millions could have been saved. Primary care raised these concern before anyone else did, I believe.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Great news! Criticism by RAG rating on a spreadsheet is the only language these people understand!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • care.data was/is just another nail for GP as we know it. A succesful project with integrated IT with patients notes centrally accessable and with editing facilities is a way to centralise GP services; what we know is that local good quality care is cheaper and better for patients. Data is power these days.
    On another note if I spent my partners money on such a useless undeliverable system they would not give me more and they'd sack me.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • there's never any good news on here is there?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is good news!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Ah so it is. I don't get time to properly read these article nowadays! lol

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • don't-care.waste-of-money.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • So who is culpable here? Whose neck is on the line. No-one? Not even Jeremy *unt?

    Why not?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say