asked the Minister for Health if he will make a statement on the request made by the Comptroller and Auditor General as reported in a recent medical journal (details supplied) to have an explanation as to the reason money was provided from his Department's vote towards the cost of a non-standard computer system which was installed in a Dublin voluntary hospital and which was in contravention of an instruction from his Department; whether any other hospitals or health boards have installed non-standard systems; and, if so, the circumstances under which this has occurred.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dublin Hospital Computer System.
11.
The hospital referred to requested funding from the Department to install the patient administration computer system approved for the health services generally. A sum of £75,550 approximately was accordingly paid for ancillary computer services in connection with the installation of the system. The hospital subsequently informed the Department that they were contracting for an alternative computer system. The hospital was informed that, as they were acting contrary to Department policy, no financial assistance would be made available for the project, and arrangements were made for the sum already paid to be deducted from a subsequent capital grant instalment payable to the hospital.
Two other public voluntary hospitals informed the Department that they too had arranged to install the alternative computer system. No financial assistance was made available to them either.
Was there some serious cock-up in the Minister's Department in relation to the purchase of computer equipment? Equipment costing £2.18 million was purchased in December 1982, but £500,000 worth of that equipment was still in a manufacturer's store in 1986 and up to 1987 £250,000 worth of the equipment was still there. Some of the equipment was sold back to the manufacturers below market value. Have the Department responded to the demand by the Comptroller and Auditor General for an explanation?
While this does not arise out of the specific question, I am aware that the Department decided during the period 1980-82 that the maximum use should be made of standardised computer systems in hospitals. A detailed evaluation and assessment of requirements and of available computer systems was carried out. A computer system supplied by McDonnell Douglas was approved as the standard computer system for patient administration. Extensive high level external computer consultancy assistance was employed in the analysis and evaluation leading to this decision. Since the decision to standardise the McDonnell Douglas system was taken in 1982-83, there have been significant developments both in computer technology itself and in hospital information systems requirements. Accordingly, it was decided in 1987 that a new competitive tendering process should be carried out to select patient administrative systems for the future, particularly for Beaumount Hospital.
All these issues were raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his report. Is the Comptroller satisfied with the explanations given by the Department on the scandalous waste of taxpayer's money?
I am not in possession of that information but I will communicate with the Deputy.