The great failure

Ross Andersson, Cambridge University. Photo: Jan Fredrik Frantzen, NST.

The idea of collecting all patient information arose at the beginning of the 1990s, and from 2002 a full-scale effort was made to gather all patient information in the same database, as everything to which health staff should have access.

It was supposed to make communication in the public health service much easier, because everyone would have access to the same information, regardless of where in the country they were, and the information would be available for research.

- It is all in the process of collapsing and several of the partners have withdrawn from the project, says the professor from the University of Cambridge.

Insecure system

First, the system is vulnerable to computer problems, and there has been one example of the power supply to the server in London failing. The result was that a hospital in Oxford did not manage to perform any operations that day, because staff had no access to the database and the digital X-rays they needed to prepare for surgery.

- Another major problem is that the information may fall into the wrong hands. What happens when 300,000 medical receptionists have access to read 50 million patient records? And what about other users such as the police and social workers?

In other words, he feels that far too many people obtain access to too much information about far too many people. Professor Anderson also highlights another critical point in the system: information that has been entered cannot be changed.

For example, he refers to a woman who underwent an orthopaedic operation, but who was mistakenly described as an alcoholic in the patient record. And it was only when the issue was debated in the British Parliament that she succeeded in getting the incorrect data removed.

Negative effect on innovation

Anderson also asserts that medical technological innovation is suffering under the new scheme with one system and one central information database. Before, hospitals and doctors could order new functionality that they needed. The smaller companies would then compete for the job and be innovative.

- Now the same companies are mainly working as subcontractors implementing the system that has been produced by a single supplier. In addition, the large system has been ordered by administrative staff who do not have medical knowledge or adequate insight into the needs of the health service.