Archive: nhs

I said that I had hoped to tweet a bit from Scotweb2. I am terrible at multitasking though so I only managed a miserly two, hurriedly posted during lunch. So instead I will write a report of what went on.

First off there was a great talk by James Munro who works on an interesting website, Patient Opinion. The site offers people a platform to make comments — positive or negative — about their experiences of the NHS.

It’s a great website demonstrating the idea that perhaps governments should not be making websites — they should be publishing data and APIs for other people to build upon. This is very much in the Mysociety mould. You might expect this sort of website to be provided by the government. Indeed, since Patient Opinion was founded the NHS has started a similar project on its NHS Choices site. Cleverly, Patient Opinion has created a mashup of their content at the NHS’s.

But there are potential problems with such a site receiving government backing. During the presentation it was pointed out by some that on an NHS-run or government-backed website, people might be tempted to rant or let off steam. But in the more neutral arena of an independent site like Patient Opinion, people are more likely to post more thoughtful comments.

Another point about Patient Opinion is that all of the comments that appear there are pre-moderated. If I remember correctly, James Munro said that 95% of all comments are approved on Patient Opinion while only around 75% of comments are approved on NHS Choices. There might be a suspicion that the NHS may suppress negative comments. People are more likely to trust an independent website.

It struck me afterwards (long after there was the opportunity to mention it) that this phenomenon could apply not just to government websites but to all websites. I have written about the poor standard of comments on mainstream media websites a number of times in the past. I have argued that newspaper websites might be better off putting some kind of Technorati-style widget at the bottom of each article rather than appending a comment thread where the poor standard of debate can sometimes be quite off-putting.

Then there are the implications for business websites. It was noted that web 2.0 is all about transparency. Another theme of Scotweb2 was the implications / challenges / opportunities of web 2.0 for small businesses (and, indeed, large businesses). What if a business decides to have a feedback section on its website? It will face the same issues that a government website will face — users will be reluctant to trust it and may be tempted to simply let off steam.

Perhaps the concept of Patient Opinion could be applied to all kinds of different areas. It seems to me that if it works in the realm of healthcare, there is no reason why it wouldn’t make sense in other areas like the voluntary / third sector, pressure groups, the media or even business?

Following James Munro, Simon Dickson made an engaging presentation evangelising about the potential of open source solutions such as Linux, PHP and particularly WordPress. I think I had read this on Simon Dickson’s blog before, but the cost of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website still has your jaw hitting the floor. £19.2m over five years — for one website. And that was it on target. Millions sunk before a single page is made, including £1.47m on the content management system alone.

Simon Dickson’s point is that you don’t need to use proprietary systems built by the likes of Microsoft. Why spend millions on a CMS when you can use the highly flexible WordPress platform which is free? The new-ish 10 Downing Street website is run on WordPress. And the Wales Office website is also now run on WordPress, and it cost a significantly lower amount of money. I’ve forgotten exactly what it was, but it was certainly not £19.2m.

Something that came up a number of times was that the cause of many of the problems leading to inadequate or ridiculously expensive government websites is to do with mindset. WordPress is seen as a risk; Microsoft is a trusted brand. Thankfully that seems to be changing in a lot of areas.

I got the sense that a lot of people were very impressed by the idea of WordPress. If you’ve been using it for a while it is easy to take it for granted. But the fact remains that it is a remarkable achievement for a community to have created such a powerful open-source, freely available and fully tweakable application.

After Simon Dickson’s initial presentation, we split up into two groups. Already being a convert to WordPress, I opted to skip Simon Dickson’s workshop about WordPress and instead I stuck around for Stewart Kirkpatrick‘s talk about content. The presentation basically highlighted interesting websites that have become successful because of the careful choice of content. For instance, YouTube beat Google Video because it gives you plenty of toys to play with (e.g. it’s dead easy to share videos on Facebook, embed them on your blog, etc) and relevant videos to tempt you further. Common sense stuff really.

I think it was at this point of the afternoon that we got talking about some startling instances of data unavailability. Apparently the Royal Mail doesn’t have a database of locations of all of its postboxes, while another person said he knew of a company that couldn’t even produce a database of its employees. if I recall correctly, James Munro mentioned the difficulty Patient Opinion had in simply getting a database of Scottish hospitals and their postcodes.

After lunch there was a talk about BT Tradespace. Then I hung around for Mark Ballard’s workshop about web 2.0 and civic society. The thing that struck me most during this discussion was the idea that some voluntary organisations are seemingly quite worried about web 2.0 efforts swiping the rug from under their feet.

All the while I had a good chit-chat with Stephen Glenn. I would have loved to have been able to join the others in the pub, but unfortunately I had to rush back home to work.

All-in-all it was a great day with many fascinating presentations. Hats off to Alex Stobart for organising the event. By the sounds of it there are going to be more events like this in the future. It would be great for the web 2.0 ball to get rolling a bit faster in Scotland.

Yesterday morning I spotted a letter lying on the dining table. It was addressed to my father, who is a teacher. The letter was from the rector of his school. I read through it. It was quite a crap letter really. It really just said, “Thanks, and have a good holiday.” As if people normally expect their employers to write a letter giving them the bird for no good reason.

I am not sure if such letters are standard practice, but it did seem to be a bit of a waste to me. Not just a waste of money in terms of postage costs — but a waste of time of whoever wrote it, and a waste of time of all the people who had to read the rather banal letter.

I don’t know what my father thought of the letter. But if I was the recipient of it, I think I would have thrown it in the bin. And I would have thought to myself, “If they were really sincere about it, why did they not say that to my face?”

Reluctant Hero at Our Scotland is pretty impressed by a similar letter which has been sent out by Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon to every employee of NHS Scotland.

From cleaner to consultant, the letter thanked us for efforts, particularly over the last week or so.

Now this is hardly anything worthy of the BBC running a special news bulletin on, but I think it is extremely significant. It shows, in my opinion, the massive difference between the SNP in government and the Labour Party in government.

I doubt that any Labour MSP ever wrote to a public sector employee to say “bollocks to the lot of you!” Given the banal nature of Nicola Sturgeon’s message, of course the first thing I did was work out how much it cost to send it.

The NHS Scotland website says that it employed approximately 158,000 people in 2006. This means that sending a letter to each NHS Scotland employee by second class would cost £37,920. Which is quite a lot more than an average annual income.

Of course, it is a drop in the ocean in terms of public spending. But I just thought I’d say, you know. It seems like a bit of a pointless letter to send. It might have given NHS employees a fuzzy feeling inside for half a day or so. But beyond that, I doubt it was really worth the thirty-eight thousand big ones to tell people something that is surely a given.

I can’t stand the smugness of those Get a Mac adverts with Mitchell and Webb in them. I especially hate the one that says Macs never crash. That’s just bullshit. I’m sure OS X is better, but the last Mac I used crashed all the time. As for this PC with Windows XP — for all its faults — it crashes far, far less often.

It’s like when Labour blame the state of the NHS on the Conservatives. Maybe that was so ten years ago…

Mitchell and Webb Mac ads Anyway, I saw this banner ad on Comment is Free and I can’t help but wonder if these adverts are really sending out the right message. I mean, if you were undecided between purchasing a Mac and a PC, would this advert really sway you?

I mean, surely if you wanted fun you’d just buy a Wii wouldn’t you? Moreover, this makes ‘Mac’ look like one of those awful people that go around the place telling everybody how fun they are.

With these adverts, David Letterman got it right.

These days I keep on getting junk mail from Specsavers trying to get me to arrange a FREE! eye test. Since the eye tests became free at the point of use in Scotland less than a year ago I must have received at least four letters about it, and they are becoming increasingly exasperated by my non-attendance.

Today’s letter begins with a line in big bold writing:

An URGENT message about your FREE eye examination

It’s now nearly three and a half years since your last sight test at this practice.

How do they know it’s urgent? Something tells me that I might be in a better position to judge whether or not I need an eye test. It’s quite simple really. If I can’t see easily, I’ll take a trip to the opticians like I did several years ago. If I can see easily, I won’t take a trip to the opticians — because I don’t need to.

I’m pretty certain that my eyesight hasn’t deteriorated in the past three and a half years. In fact, the optician that tested my eyes the last time actually gave me a row because I turned up and my eyesight hadn’t changed.

I know there is probably a good reason why the boss of Specsavers is the boss of Specsavers whereas I stack shelves in Woolies. But these letters still confuse me. Why do they now keep on sending these letters which shout louder at me each time and at an increasing frequency? Unless they must do so by law (which seems far fetched to me), they can only be doing this because they think they can make money in future, using the free eye tests as a loss leader. So why did they not make their eye tests free anyway, before the Scottish Executive told them to?