Talk:Choose and Book

message: There are comments and edits about User Experience which are contentious.  I'm trying to dig out information that is both validated and in the Public Domain so that we have a truly impartial view.  Sadly comments seem to fall into one camp or the other.
Advice on how to represent this is welcome.
Most of the negative press appears to emanate from those with a vested interest in its failure.
Most of the published positives are usually dismissed as 'puff pieces' from the DH.
I'm too close to this to be truly objective, but most of the negative comments appear to be based on tabloid comments rather than facts, while I see a significantly positive view expressed from users.
Somehow we need to distinguish between 'Users' (almost all are NHS employees or contractors) and Patients (who, in theory can access the system, but have very rarely done so). -Pimdip 22:57, 31 August 2006
: If we try and fail to find any trustworthy sources, then I think we need to be brave and just remove the content. It's a contentious issue, but the verifiability principle does point that way. --VinceBowdren 23:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Instead of deleting uncited content, which admitedly you have done qute a bt recently, try and look for sources. I know my contributions to user experience were not taken from tabloids and is user experience. I did however add the citation needed tag hoping another contributor would do so. Understandably, for such a recent subject, it is hard to find sources oher than contributors who are themselves users. I'll be glad to relate my experience as an impartial technician after my next install. Screenshots maybe ? we'll end up with an empty Wikipedia if you continue like this ! Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 05:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've just published a paper on patient experience of Choose and Book that might be what people are looking for. If there are no objections, I'll put a citation in. The reference list has some further citations of possible relevance. Bondegezou (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I've added that citation, but as there's a clear conflict of interest, I encourage other editors to review and re-write that addition. Further references in the paper cited may provide more useful material. There is an extensive literature criticising Choose and Book and that should be reflected in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good relevant reference, but might need balancing about whether the lack of choice is due to the application, or provider Trusts not publishing their services effectively or in sufficient quantity.  Might also be time for a subsection on poor user experience where providers proactively hold back appointment slots from CaB to  make their 18 week figures look better? Pimdip (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: User Experience

message: Choose and book is a policy of the ENGLISH NHS, therefore stating "United Kingdom's NHS" is simply incorrect.  There is no such entity as the UK NHS. Panthro 21:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe not, but the NHS as we know it covers England and Wales. There also is NHS in Scotland  ... Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually Panthro's right. There are 4 separate Health Services now; Wales is as separate as Scotland's.  I'll have a squint through NHS articles and check for the inaccuracy Panthro pointed out.Pimdip 09:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the choose and book website, it "has been introduced across England. It will eventually be available to all patients.". Sounds like it's also going to cover everywhere else as well as England. --VinceBowdren 13:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  R/V 

message: The cost of this and other projects are always being mentioned in the press. Is there anything factual we can say about that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.6.222.229 (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The full contract value was announced as £84M if I recall correctly (will try to find source) but this is too simplistic.  The contract includes a small up-front element but the bulk of its value is an undisclosed 'cost per transaction' element to ensure contract value realisation.Pimdip 22:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cost

message: I've added reference to the Independent Sector's entry to the CaB market place.
Firstly, do we need a separate 'Patient Choice' entry, as this (whilst strongly linked to CaB) is not entirely dependent on it.
Secondly, do we need clarification on what is a UK 'Independent Sctor' provider?
The time seems ripe as we're already seeing patients leaving their GP surgery with a confirmed appointment at a BUPA hospital (funded through the NHS) and the other big players (Nuffield, Capio et al) will be onstream in the next few weeks.
Thoughts? Pimdip 23:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Patient Choice

message: Is this part of choose and book?
See this article here.
: No.  This is a facility offered by EMIS (a GP Clinicial Systems Supplier) and only works for GPs who use their system, and relates to booking GP appointments (Choose and Book is for booking from the GP into Outpatients.)  The main challenge of NPfIT products is to work across different propietary systems - much easier to do it within one single product.
: Ironically, GPs in my organisation piloted Digital TV via a local cable TV company back in the laste 90s.  What a short corporate memory we have :-( Pimdip 18:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Booking via TV 

message: The image :Image:CERNER LOGO.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:CERNER LOGO.JPG