Search Telecare Aware
Like it? Share it!
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
sponsorship banners general advertising *special: sponsor a conference report* |
3 Febuary edition of the Telemedicine Reporter International Edition (PDF) for download thanks to US Tele-Medicine. To be emailed when the next is released email their media dept. |
|
| The gist is...If you have a serious comment to make anonymously...email it, don't just post it. |
Truly anonymous comments - where the writer is unknown - are not published unless they are unexceptional.
Comments or articles where the authorship is known but are offered for publication anonymously are considered on their merits. (Email Steve or Donna in confidence.) There are some circumstances where it is necessary to be close to a particular situation to be able to throw light on it but to write about it publicly would jeopardise the author's position. In that case, the decision to publish an item anonymously hinges on the question of whether or not it is informed opinion that will add insight to, or might start, a debate on a particular topic.
Unsubstantiated allegations of illegal behaviour or substandard products, for example, would not be posted unless they could be independently verified, in which case we would probably publish them ourselves.
Just because a post, article or comment, etc. is published on Telecare Aware readers cannot and should not infer that the editors agree with the author, anonymous or not.
Steve Hards
Donna Cusano
Editors
steve.hards@telecareaware.com
donna.cusano@telecareaware.com
Telecare Soapbox: Northern Ireland's 'unhappy first birthday' approaches |
| Written by Steve Hards |
| Friday, 15 May 2009 09:20 |
|
We are now approaching a year since Northern Ireland's Centre for Connected Health published its Prior Information Notice (PDF) for a large-scale, province-wide remote patient monitoring service. It's not a happy first birthday because, as far as anyone can tell, the procurement process is not likely to come to a satisfactory conclusion any time soon. For us on the outside it is hard to tell whether this is due to the complicated nature of the task, or incompetence, or a mixture of both. However, as a matter of opinion, it didn't help that the tender invitation did not include information that the selection criteria would exclude 'small' suppliers with relevant experience, some of whom committed resources to prepare a bid for a process in which they later discovered they would not be allowed to participate... Nor did it help that some of the companies meeting the criteria for the initial long listing did not have any 'real world' experience of implementing a telehealth remote patient monitoring system larger than a small pilot and just seemed to be there because they were 'big names' and could presumably talk a good talk. (See Telecare Aware item 5 December 2008.) Dear Sir or Madam Again I received no reply, not even a standard or automated acknowledgement, and chased it by email a week later. Still no response. On 7 May, I followed this up with an enquiry via the NI Executive's website contact form: Do the Ministers' Private Offices have standards they are expected to meet regarding speed of response to emails sent to their addresses as published on this website? This brought a response from the web team that the Minister's Private Office was being contacted and soon after I received a copy of a letter from the EU Centre for Connected Health's Interim Chief Executive, Andrew Hamilton. Apparently it had been written on 24 April, nine days after my email to the Private Office but "due to an oversight we omitted to issue the response to you." Here is the text of the letter: Dear Mr Hards, I am sure readers are already forming views, so I'll confine my comments to:
So now we wait for the announcement of the outcome of the short listing stage. I wonder if the extended delay means that the contract is not going to fall into the lap of the Tunstall/Fold/S3 consortium (known as TF3) as most people expected when they saw the long list? If it were, I think we would have seen more progress by now. Perhaps that is why TF3 decided to nudge the process along and had an article (advertorial?) published in April's AgendaNI. AgendaNI describes itself as "Northern Ireland's leading public policy magazine, reaching over 7000 key decision makers in government, business, voluntary and community sectors". However, other bidders complained that this was indirect canvassing, which is a serious breach of procurement protocols. Following this, Tunstall and S3 seem to have rapidly pulled information about TF3 from their websites, but Fold, at the time of writing, still has the article as a news item, although you cannot navigate to it. (I can't find it on the AgendaNI site, either.) Whether this rapid corrective action by the TF3 partners will redeem them enough to stay in the running for the final short list remains to be seen. Finally, as this project appears to be sliding into a fiasco, I do wonder whether the position of Mr Hamilton as Interim Chief Executive is sustainable much longer. |










