DynamicSpirit
Established Member
however there is the inefficiency of there not being a single unified IT system, instead individual trusts / GP groups can go and buy any of a number of approved systems (hmm that sounds VERY familiar doesn't it!)
basically, the government saw the success of gov.uk (which bucked the trend of endless layers of outsourcing in favour of more in house work and a holistic approach to user experience and software engineering) and ignored it
You can argue either way: A unified in-house system might save duplication and the bureaucracy of outsourcing, but you lose the innovation that comes from multiple competing providers. When you have multiple systems out there being used, then different groups of developers can learn from what other companies are doing that works etc. And let's face, it, an appointments system isn't exactly rocket science: There must be dozens of functioning solutions already being used by different companies around the UK.
But the impression I have from my interactions with local hospitals and sugeries is that the NHS has managed to devise the worst of all worlds, with completely patient-unfriendly systems.
I think the problem here may be that a significant number of potential patients can't access online facilities, either due to not being techno-literate or maybe too ill to manage more than a phone call. Those people, whose need may be greatest, will be shut out if online bookers grab all the appointments.
True. But if there is a decent an online system, then those people who who are happy to use it will do so - and I suspect these days that's most of the population. If - say - 30% of people making appointments still prefer to phone the surgery and talk to someone, that's still a big saving in staff time since someone only has to answer the phone for 30% of appointments instead of 100% of appointments.