Care.data, NHS Choices and now Apps - could it be three failures in a row for Tim Kelsey? - UPDATED

Body responsible for the controversial care.data programme may now be making an array of new mistakes as it tries to release a swathe of mobile apps

NHS England, the organisation behind the failing care.data programme, appears to be on the cusp of controversy once again, this time because of its Apps Library.

The organisation released its Health Apps Library in March 2013, and it now hosts around 230 apps. However, the review criteria - which are designed to provide a framework to assess those apps for suitability before they're published for the public to download - have recently been labelled weak and, furthermore, it seems that some of the apps fail to meet even that standard.

Phil Booth, co-ordinator at health privacy campaign group medConfidential, described the review criteria as "very weak", and added that his organisation has given feedback to NHS England on how some of the apps could be improved, but the advice appears to have been ignored.

"Unfortunately, not all of the apps currently in the Library even meet the criteria they supposedly should. And, despite having provided detailed and specific feedback on a number of these apps using the provided feedback forms on the relevant web pages SIX weeks ago, we have had no response - and nothing appears to have changed on the site."

However, two of the apps in question, Kvetch and Doctoralia, were subsequently removed from the site by NHS England after Computing spoke with medConfidential.

Booth explained his view that the current state of the app store raises three questions:

• Is NHS England going to fix its existing failures before it embarks on a whole set of new ones?
• Is NHS England competent to enter the apps arena if it can't even respond at 'web speed' to 'user' feedback?
• Are the apps in the Library actually endorsed, or do patients realise they are guinea-pigs for another Tim Kelsey 'experiment'?

On the 25 June 2015 the Major Projects Authority (an organisation designed to report on government projects) released its annual report, which gave the care.data programme a 'red' status, the worst possible rating. It added that the programme would need to improve in five key areas - including business case assurance, a risk-management strategy and a national rollout plan - in order to be removed from the list of failing projects.

The report branded the programme 'unachievable' in its current form.

However a spokesperson from NHS England claimed that the report is out of date and that NHS Choices has improved slightly since it was written.

"This is an old report from eight months ago and since then a lot of work has been done on the programme. A subsequent review undertaken this year reported the Choices programme as Amber/Red reflecting the progress made. The programme continues to make progress.

"It is vitally import that we ensure all of the apps recommended on NHS Choices are, as minimum, clinically safe, relevant to people living in England and compliant with the Data protection act. We were made aware of some issues with a couple of apps on the Health Apps Library and these have since been removed."

Care.data is currently on hold while various local trials are established in order for many issues around its capture and use of data to be resolved.

Other data released alongside the report also brands NHS Choices, the national online health information service launched by Kelsey in 2007, with the same red, failing status. It criticised the service for its management, governance and business case.

The report stated:

"The key issues for the NHS Choices programme are:

• Splitting the transformation programme from the running of the live service (the minimum viable service);
• Leadership of the programme and establishing a permanent Senior Responsible Owner; and
• Future direction and funding for the service.

"Therefore, the NHS Choices programme pathway to a green delivery confidence includes:

• Review of the current programme management and governance arrangements;
• Appointment of a permanent Senior Responsible Owner for the programme;
• The business justification for funding of the live service for 2015/16 and initial funding of the transformation programme to be approved; and
• A programme business case for three years (with option to extend by two urther years) to be submitted for approval."

With the Health Apps Library now seemingly suffering familiar issues around governance, leadership and suitability for purpose, it appears possible that a third major failing project could soon be on the cards for NHS England without urgent action.