UK Imaging Informatics Group
OJEU vs Framework--in 2013 PACS Repla... PreviousNext
UK Imaging Informatics Group > Questions & Answers > PACS Procurement & Business Cases >
Message/Author
 Link to this message Neelam Dugar  posted on Saturday, June 18, 2011 - 07:09 am Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Many of you would have already read this article on EHI
http://www.ehi.co.uk/news/ehi/6940/dh-works-on-pacs-transition-framework
and heard what CFH team said at UKRC.

My take on this is
he choice of OJEU must not be taken away from Trusts.

Success of Framework with Trust wanting to use framework will depend on many factors:

1. Who is providing the framework and what credibility do they have. CFH in 2002 provided the LSP-PACS framework-----hugely costly, poor service, ---. Many Trusts will be thinking can CFH be trusted? NHS Supply Chain also have been talking about providing a framework (if DH gives them a go-ahead). However, Trusts need to see what is in there before Trusts make a decision. Supply Chain will have to prove their credibility to Trusts.

2. Do Trusts really have a choice regarding framework? LSP-CFH framework was forced on Trusts under threats of penalties. Trusts will have to take this framework if it is forced centrally--as it was in the past. However, if given a choice of OJEU vs. framework will depend on what is put on the table with framework, and whether it really offers advantages.

3. Will Trusts have a choice of suppliers within the framework? LSP-CFH framework did not provide a choice for Trust. The supplier was forced on the Trust.

4. Are the majority of PACS vendors going to be will to sell through the framework? ---i.e. is there a credible choice. I once looked ASCC framework from CFH for Ordercomms. ICE the commonest in use Ordercomms in NHS, was not featured in there. Most companies on the ASCC framework for Ordercomms did not even have a Ordercomms I had heard in NHS. So were these companies just middlemen?

5. Will the framework allow a direct dealing between Trusts & PACS suppliers for service & support. This is critical to Trusts. LSP-CFH contracts have produced excessive obstruction & bureaucracy by the middlemen involved. Will the framework allow for direct relationship?

Without knowing what is in the framework, and who will be providing it, it is difficult for NHS Trusts to decide. Choice for OJEU must NOT be taken away from us.
 Link to this message Richard Mann  posted on Monday, June 20, 2011 - 09:14 am Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Agree framework will need credibility, and that some aspects of CFH programme have been "sub-optimal"...

In fairness to CFH though, we weren't forced to take it - I don't recall any penalties. It was rather the other way round - if you signed up you got a shedload of capital to enable the rollout.

Be rather useful for a bunch of trusts to go to ojeu and test the market. Probably not great if we all try to do it at the same time, though.
 Link to this message Keith Baldry  posted on Monday, June 20, 2011 - 11:35 am Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Richard - I think that you will find that for many trusts there were very substantial implied penalties to the local health community should a trust not take the LSP PACS offering, and the "shedload of capital" has come nowhere near covering the very considerably higher revenue consequences that those trusts have incurred from the Accenture PACS deployment compared to an open procurement.
 Link to this message Richard Mann  posted on Monday, June 20, 2011 - 12:21 pm Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Hi Keith,

Love to know what was implied in your area - but that's probably not for the forum :-)

Revenue consequences very much linked to the amount of kit bought off the catalogue. If you are saying that with hindsight you'd rather have taken a different path then you will soon have your opportunity for change.
 Link to this message Neelam Dugar  posted on Monday, June 20, 2011 - 12:36 pm Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
"many trusts there were very substantial implied penalties to the local health community should a trust not take the LSP PACS offering"

I agree it was implied by SHA that if we went outside the LSP we would have to pay for LSP PACS (even if we did not use it) plus the PACS bought by Trust outside the lSP contract.

"Revenue consequences very much linked to the amount of kit bought off the catalogue"
You could not buy hardware outside the catalogue anyway--without being threatened with no support being provided. So Trusts had no choice but to buy equipment they needed from catalogue.

However, the purpose of this discussion is to move ahead & think of the framework we would like to see in the future (if there was to be a framework)

"If you are saying that with hindsight you'd rather have taken a different path then you will soon have your opportunity for change"
I do hope & pray that you are right Richard and a choice will exist in 2013.

An open transparent framework & CHOICE for Trusts--- to buy or NOT to buy from the framework is what I would like to see happen in the future.

I do hope lessons have been learnt.
 Link to this message Richard Mann  posted on Monday, June 20, 2011 - 01:01 pm Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Penalties - intriguing!

Revenue - there was a degree of choice in how much of their kit you bought.

Ojeu - I think your choice exists right now. If you don't want to extend, go to ojeu for an alternative. Or, given timescales, perhaps extend and then ojeu.
 
Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: