loddon wrote on Aug 30^th, 2007 at 7:46am:


Well done Mike Foster - clearly not a toady, even if he is a Labour MP. (See www.michaelfoster.co.uk)

Perhaps he can now widen out his efforts to also take in the even more grotesque abuses of frequently terminally ill patients and their families by Patientline while he is writing to the relevant health ministers.

This is the item on his website about the 0844 doctors surgeries abuses:-

www.michaelfoster.co.uk/detail.asp?articleid=591

Simond001,  someone, in an earlier post, said that NEG offer doctors a choice of either an 0844 OR a Geographic local number (presumably their existing number).   Is this true?

simond001 wrote on Aug 30^th, 2007 at 8:08am:


Just as the NHS should also buy out the assets of the beleaguered Patientline so that the sick and elderly can have their relatives communicate with them for the price of a normal 01/02 phone call as would be the case if they were in most private hospitals in the UK.

loddon wrote on Aug 30^th, 2007 at 8:04am:


I'm sorry but i don't know. When i first read these posts i did spend some time on their website trying to understand the whole service but cannot recall anything about that.  A NGN has to pint at a Geo for delivery, so it may be that they keep the existing number. This would work daytime, but wouldnt work after hours or for network based services as the call would have bypassed the IVR/ICR.

This would also have minimal benefit for daytime callers (low income families are least likely to take up the Bt inclusive call option) as they will still be paying the Bt daytime rate for a local call, or hit by a mcc from BT, and evening callers will have to call the surgery to get a "closed message", then redial an out of office number that could well be a mobile.

An option of a local geo number, (preferably the original surgery number) terminating at a IN. Calls could then be sent straight to the suregery durin open hours, and to the out of hours service when closed. Their would be a cost implication though  for the inbound call, and a further cost for the onward call.

The difficulty (as ever) is the balance betwen cost and service, and where the funding comes from. If this was a  national NHS funded service it would work. This would however be a massive financial undertaking as every surgery would want to improved service, and additional funding would be required for the capital cost of the eqpt (if you can buy it, you can get a grant somewhere for it!)

If this is achieved, i will be first applying for a sales position at NEG! Their shares (if public) will also go through the roof as they appear to be one of the main providers of this service. 

With regard to what will happen to Patient

^oops

Surgery Line once 0844 numbers cannot be used for it.

This will cause difficulties for PCTs, GPs and the DoH, not to mention NEG. It will also be tricky for Ofcom and the Telcos as 03 is still not ready to go. All these parties will need to sort this out, probably over some period of time. I hope that we will be able to apply pressure by stressing the principles that need to be applied. We may also be able to work positively with these parties on specific issues to ensure that the best solutions emerge.

I cannot yet see any obvious answers to cover the many different aspects. Let us get to the situation where a clear declaration is made that revenue sharing is not longer legitimate (without having to wait for all the answers covering the implications, nor worry too much about the fact that it never has been) and then let matters proceed from there.


On the general point, I think we all agree that whatever telephone technology is seen to best meet the needs of NHS patients, it must be paid for out of NHS funds. In each case the benefits will have to be seen to justify the cost. Different practices may come up with different solutions that best suit their needs and those of their patients. Distorting this judgement by partially funding the solution with fees collected from patients could be said to be an imaginative way around the problem of tight budgets, but it is, as it always was, totally unacceptable in the context of an NHS free at the point of use.

David

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 30^th, 2007 at 8:49am:


I think you may mean Surgeryline.

simond001 wrote on Aug 30^th, 2007 at 8:26am:


Simond001.   Could you please explain your terms instead of quoting industry acronyms which most of us don't understand.   What are IVR/ICR, IN, mcc?    I have no idea what you are talking about and therefore do not understand what points you are trying to make.

simond001 wrote on Aug 30^th, 2007 at 8:08am:


As you won't answer my question I will give you my understanding.    All these functions can equally well be performed when using a geographic number.   These functions are provided by the equipment and not the 0844 number.  

It is apparently one of the many falsehoods given by NEG when selling their systems to doctors that they need to use 0844 in order to get these functions.    This is not true.

What doctors should be doing is preparing a specification of their requirements and then inviting competitive tenders from suppliers and comparing compliance and price before selecting their supplier and equipment.    One of the requirements should be that call costs to patients are no greater than standard 01/02 charges.    How many are actually comparing competitive proposals before selecting NEGs solution?