Almost two months after GP software market leader EMIS first publicly stated that the company would not sign contracts with Local Service Providers there is still no indication of whether the current market leader in primary care clinical systems will participate in the National Programme for IT. Enquires by E-Health Insider over recent weeks to both the NPfIT and EMIS have met with the stock response that negotiations are continuing both between EMIS and the NPfIT and between EMIS and individual LSPs. However, no details have been provided as negotiations are bound by strict confidentiality agreements. On 4 February EMIS issued a statement saying that a meeting with NPfIT had occurred and that "further meetings and negotiations are scheduled over the forthcoming days," suggesting a resolution might be imminent. In its most recent official statement, dated 20 February, Sean Riddell, deputy managing director of EMIS, said: “Although there are still some issues to overcome, our continuing discussions with the LSPs lead us to be optimistic about the conclusion of an agreement for working alongside the National Programme for IT.” The lack of any subsequent puffs of smoke emerging from these negotiations means that half of all GP practices in England – EMIS currently has over 50% of the GP market – remain unsure about the future of their key clinical systems. Indications reaching EHI suggest that in the meantime planning for local implementation of the national programme is moving on apace without EMIS. In the North East cluster where Accenture is the LSP, EHI understands that plans are already well developed to start migrating early primary care adopters to Torex systems – likely to be Torex Synergy – in many cases a direct switch from practices currently using EMIS. However, one source close to Accenture in the North East told EHI that he had detected a mellowing with regard to EMIS. "They [Accenture] realise they have a problem and a trying to do something about it. They are now being much more conciliatory and saying they will get a solution." The same source suggested that one reason the issue had gone quiet could be because all GPs were trying to get ready for April’s new GMS contract, and didn’t have "the time, resource or inclination to get it sorted out at the moment". One anonymous GP working closely with his LSP told EHI he fully backed the aims of the national programme but worried about the atmosphere of secrecy surrounding it. "Such secrecy is extraordinary in what purports to be a public service in a democracy and is totally inappropriate if we are to get the sign-up of end user clinicians to NCRS." In an interview with EHI Andrew Lansley, the Conservative’s shadow health spokesperson, said that he was concerned about the current apparent “planning blight”. "I’ve been speaking to GP practices, and they’ve invested their own money and they’ve got their own systems, and they really don’t know whether their systems are going to have to be thrown out of the door." The problem he said was uncertainty among GPs who had told him: “We can’t buy anything new, because we don’t know whether we’ll have to chuck out the stuff we have bought.” He said he was concerned that this was "very demotivating for GP practices who felt they’d invested in IT".
