Which given the studious lack[0] of central planning and control of its development is interesting[1].
Its fundamental principle[2] may[3] be worth adopting. NPfIT started from 0/2 on that basis, and if anything got worse.
So the internet works by providing wires on which sit a load of computers (referred to as “hosts” or “peers”[4] ). Each can talk to each using a simple set of rules. Some vaguely central directories of machines are kept, and anyone may make a list of machines they trust and identifiers for them. This is a task which governments could do well, if they could do it well.
If the computer in the casualty department wants to know something about a patient, then it can send a question to the computer in the patient’s general practice. It could ask around to the Darzi Centre, the Nuffield[5], and the Orthopaedic clinic in Val Thorens[5] as well.
And then the patient should get an account showing what access has been made to their medical record[6], which tends to keep everyone honest, or at least visible.
(Adding a registry and security to this is not as hard as it may seem. Not trivial, and not something to do with secret programs, but the problems are known[8])
[0] After Al Gore steered funding for it through Congress the nerds just got on with making it work.
[1] Correlation does not prove causation
[2] Rough consensus and _running code_
[3] I mean is, but this is supposed to look more tactful
[4] An indication of the attitude which works, and prevails, and is opposite to that favoured in NPfIT thinking, where _our_ machines are regarded as clients of _their_ servers
[5] examples of places excluded by the currentfailed and abandoned approach to NHS sharing of records[6].
[6] whatever a medical record is, something which Accenture, Fujitsu, and CSC turned out to be no more sure about than the DoH, I think. I’m not sure about it either, but I’m quite keen on saying so because I think it is interesting to consider.
[7] refer to note 7 if you want to demonstrate having paid attention
[8] Some people may say understood and solved, but at least the latter group tend to be selling secret source programs that they claim solve them. The former group may be optimistic, but are likely to say that closed source solutions are unreliable, and are correct in that.