Slashdot Mirror
British Health System Looks at Linux
DanBrusca writes "The Observer is reporting that Britain's biggest employer, the National Health Service, may ditch Microsoft due to mounting licence costs. 'Richard Granger, NHS IT director, has ordered a trial of a Linux-based system from Sun Microsystems as part of a UKP2.3 billion computer modernisation plan. The plan could see Java Desktop software rolled out across the NHS's 1 million staff and 800,000 computers to replace Microsoft's Windows operating system and Office suite of programmes.'"
Maybe they get the same answer as people get right now who want to use Linux instead of Windows at work:
:)
"Tough shit, pal."
If they are concerned about interoperability between work and home, OpenOffice runs great on Linux *and* Windows, y'know.
The Free desktop that Just Works
Actually, it's hard to see but many US hospitals are slowly moving away from M$. This is done in many cases because of IBM who come in and sell Linux for its openness and auditability; which is in demand in the wake of the HIPAA regulations.
I agree about the universities, Microsoft is doing the RIAA thing and trying to buy their way into the classrooms for a propaganda war. Sad really that this goes under the radar to most people.
SCO: 800-726-8649
Verisign: 800-361-8319, 888-642-9675
Diebold: 800-433-VOTE (8683)
I think he is talking about the fact that under MS Liscensing 6 that you MUST upgrade certain components every X months or you lose the very expensive support you were paying for. Basically Sun is saying that they are willing to support an older configuration so long as you are willing to pay the bills. With MS that is not an option. In some instances it may be MUCH cheaper to pay a little more for software support than it is to upgrade all the hardware and pay for all of the technicians to do the upgrades. This isn't necessarily the best path all the time but if budgets are going to be lean for a year or two keeping the old systems on life support can often be a wise choice.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
The doctors don't use Windows, their secretaries do. In fact, several of the doctors whom I typed for used Macs whenever they could, using the Windows box only when they needed to get patient information from the network.
When I worked there most of my work was word processing (Word 97), email (GroupWise...wise my ass) and accessing online patient records through a terminal. All of this can be done on any platform, except I suspect that few of them crash as consistently and spectacularly (sp?) as a Windows 95 installation.
I am sure that there are specific, necessary programs in use that are Windows-based, but I am also sure that it would not be the first time that they had to write new software for their special requirements (the aforementioned ICSIS (sp) program for checking patient info, for example)
Don't be so quick to discount Sun's desktop push. They're heavily investing into R&D and have a roadmap in front of them which will drive innovation on Java-equipped desktop clients.
For example, have a look at Project Looking Glass and the keynote demo.
Actually it's not Windows that I am locked into at work, it's Office.
I have yet to find a way to get past Exchange and Citrix effectively. We looked at a few solutions that cames close, but the administration costs FAR outweighed the licensing savings (although Citrix licenses are astronomical). The other problem is that our document management system (necessary by law due to Sarbanes-Oxley Act) is iManage which only works with office and costs $75K.
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
Having the government pander the citizens only makes them weak and spineless (like modern day US or almost any "civilized" country).
If you don't want to pay medical bills, don't get friggin' sick in the first place.
Wow, what an insightful position. I suppose you can somehow chose whether or not to be born with a congenital illness can you? Or to grow up in an environment where, say, TB is present? Or whether or not to get hit by a drunk driver? Or to contract leukemia? Or cancer? Or to need a working kidney?
Who knew it was that easy!
Here's a related story that you'll like.
In the 1990s, the US Agency for International Aid (USAID), which was set up specifically to help the poor in developing world nations, put the US itself on its list of developing nations, and started providing assitance to housing and poverty projects in Washington DC, Boston, Seattle and elsewhere. In 1994, USAID took a group of Baltimore healthcare workers on a field trip to Kenya in a bid to boost that city's child immunisation rates. Before visiting Kenya, which boasted a near 100 percent record, only 56 percent of Baltimore's infants were effectively immunised. After learning from the Kenyans, Baltimore managed to improve that figure to 96 percent.
Clearly, Baltimore made a big mistake in seeking to improve the health of its future generations. All it's succeeded in doing is making them "weak and spineless". Yeah, right.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
It is impossible to remove all of the Windows boxes and replace them with Linux Desktops and Open Office, but it may start some standardisation in an outfit that has every Windows OS from MSDos 6.2 to Windows XP (including a lot of stops along the way, 3.1 and ME).
For those using machines that do not require Windows, I see no problem in switching to a Linux Desktop. Or site uses Novell as well for the backend, so Linux is definitely in our future.
Wrong.
Some medical companies, names upon request, use Windows NT as the OS that runs their diagnostic and monitoring devices.
Many come with a warning to restart the device daily.
No joke.
- oZ
// i am here.
I'm being pedantic, but the British NHS is not only Britain's biggest employer, it's Europe's biggest employer too.
My parents are both currently working in the NHS, my Dad's a consultant at the local hospital, whereas my Mum's a GP.
The way that they use computers (mainly for work) is fairly simple. My Dad will use some form of presentation building software - for preparing talks at meetings, a web browser - for filling in his "education" points list, and a word processor - for writing letters. That's it - for work both at home and at the hospital where he works. I've found that once the computer has Linux installed on it, he's got no real problems (using GNOME as a Window Manager) doing this tasks. He likes StarOffice Impress, and he's commented that Galeon is faster than Internet Explorer.
My Mum, is generally the same, she needs a scanner - for preparing practice booklets, or information leaflets, a word processor, an email client, and that's about it. At work, she says, I just "put in my password, click OK, and then click on the program icon". Now, that's not something that'd be hard to implement on Linux. Also, being part of a General Practice, they have to purchase their own computers, and software. She has commented before on the cost of the software, and how it seems to be "paying a lot for not very much".
My thoughts? Can Linux be implemented as a desktop implementation for users? Definitely. The user does not need to install software, or hardware for that matter - they cannot at the moment, as they're not "administrators" on their own machines.
Remote management would be easier, IMHO, and there'd be less problems with network floods due to virii that inevitably end up on the Windows systems.
The Police in our area, West Yorkshire, UK, have already made the switch and are running their systems on Linux. This, to me, is an indicator of how Linux, when properly implemented, can be used on the desktop. If the NHS do come up with a decent solution, I'd imagine they'll see the benefits (probably mainly cost benefits).
This post is based purely on personal experience
This is pure dealing with Microsoft, there is not a hope that Linux will be generally taken on.
And Microsoft will recognise that too.
If they had wanted to take it seriously, they would have required Linux solutions when they put out the original tender in April. They didn't.
Please note that the parent post is exagerating - it does not take 6 months to see an NHS doctor, it takes anything from 1 - 7 days depending on where you go.
Secondly, this project was the idea of the NHS, not the government, and the NHS IT director is negotiating with the government for the funding. See this Register story.
Steve.
A latent existence
Many of the patient electronic records information systems are already Unix based (Data General's Unix DG/UX, Solaris, SunOS, Digital Unix/Tru64, SCO UnixWare, HP/UX, and I think we few others I forgot). I use to develop one of the major ones.
When I joined one of the private companies which only provides medical IS software, I wasted a month realising that the Linux based solution I was developing wouldn't be accepted because the NHS Trust wanted a Windows based solution. So I spent a week trying to understand and get actual prices and sources for discounted licenses for Microsoft's server software. A quarter of the budget for this project involving custom software went to Microsoft license fees.
The reason it had to be Windows? A serious systemic lack of resources and skills. Any IT personnel working for the NHS who has enough skills to administer a Unix machine (or has actually completed their MCSE exams even) ends up taking a better paying job elsewhere. So the NHS Trusts end up relying on untrained IT staff and nurses who have moved into IT to get away from shift work. Nevermind the fact there was a 2 to 1 ratio of managers to tehnical staff (yes, 2 managers, 1 system administrator).
I have never seen such a screwed up system on such a large scale before. It is almost impressive just how broken the NHS IA / IT is.
when it takes 6 months to see a doctor for a sore throat
What the fuck are you smoking? I can nip down to my doctor and see her this afternoon (spend 10 minutes in the waiting room) and get a prescription there and then... nip out of the door and round to the chemist to pick it up.
A couple of years ago, my Dad was given a blood test which showed up possible cancer. In one week he saw a specialist and was sent for further tests (again within a week) which revealed early prostate cancer. Within a month he was in hospital having his prostate removed by the best specialty surgeon and team in the country followed by chemotherapy.
Cost to him: 0. God bless the NHS, and fuck right-wing loonies who think the U.S and its third-world civilisation approach to healthcare works.
True for many, particularly the young and the healthy, and for normal sorts of care. However, there are chronic conditions that very few individuals can pay for. The drug bill alone for treating some chronic conditions exceeds $60,000 per year. The median income for a family of four in the US is about $55,000. That family CANNOT pay for the health care for that child. It is not uncommon for an elderly person to run up $500,000 in health care costs during the last two or three years of their life. Few have that kind of resources available.
TTBOMK, there are no private charities whose purpose is to pay that type of large bill for anyone who is in need. In general, all of the programs that do so involve some degree of coercion. For Medicare and Medicaid, the government pays out of its tax base. In employer-provided insurance plans, the young and healthy pay more than their share in premiums to cover the costs of the older and sicker (the coercion in that case looking a bit more like a carrot than a stick -- the company plan provides more coverage than you need, but is "free"). And don't even think about buying private health insurance for your family if you have a child with such a pre-existing condition -- no one is going to sell you a policy at any price. Similarly if you're 93.
I agree that many aspects of the current coverage seem silly. IIRC, this form of "insurance" started with Kaiser during WWII. Among other things, Kaiser built fleets of standardized ships for the US Navy that were at least one of the critical factors in determining who won that war. Anyway, he found that it was cheaper to operate subsidized clinics to take care of workers and their families than to pay the cost of days lost to sickness or injury. In order to compete for workers, other companies had to offer some sort of similar benefit; most of them did it through private doctors and hospitals; at some point, insurance companies got involved in administering the plans. Such health care arrangements became a standard benefit demanded by the large unions. Keep in mind that health care was a LOT cheaper 60 years ago, so it seemed like a reasonable deal to the companies. Of course, if you're the top management at a company paying the line workers' health insurance premiums, you want the same benefit for yourself.
A system that made some degree of sense 60 years ago has been outstripped by changes in health care technology and society. Conditions that were fatal in the short term then can be treated (at high cost) and people can live for another 30 years. Doctors today come out of medical school owing $100,000 or more, and may face malpractice premiums of $100,000 per year. The US is the richest country in the world, and spends a larger percentage of its GDP on health care than any other industrial nation. At some point, I believe, we'll get this mess straightened out, although things will probably have to get worse before we're willing to take the needed steps.