Experts have expressed concern that the firing of Fujitsu from the £12.7bn National Programme for IT (NPfIT) will cause further delays to the project, which is already four years behind schedule.

Last week NHS Connecting for Health (CFH) fired supplier Fujitsu ­ which was responsible for the southern region of the scheme ­ after 10 months of contract re-negotiations broke down.

It is crucial that CFH finds a supplier to plug the gap as quickly as possible, said Dr Chaand Nagpaul, IT lead on the British Medical Association’s (BMA) GP committee.
“The BMA is concerned that the termination of contract between Fujitsu and Connecting for Health will cause further delays to the NHS IT programme,” he said.

“We hope that the situation can be resolved without further delays or cost to the taxpayer.”

Martyn Hart, chairman of the National Outsourcing Association (NOA), said the move could well lead to further waste.

“This leaves the success of the NHS project on a knife edge, with billions of pounds worth of taxpayers’ money being wasted already with more likely to follow it down the drain,” he said.

CFH, which runs the NPfIT, insisted the move was in the best interests of the taxpayer, and that Fujitsu would help ensure a smooth transition to any
new supplier.

“NHS CFH has to continue to protect the interests of the taxpayer and preserve the basis of contracts which ensure payment on delivery. Work has started immediately on planning the necessary arrangements,” said a spokesman.

It is thought BT is the most likely candidate to take over the area, as the patient record software being used in London ­ the area BT supplies ­ is the same as in the southern region that Fujitsu was supplying.

The other likely option is CSC, but the firm already runs two of the five areas of the programme, as well as being selected recently as a preferred supplier for the ID cards scheme.

And a switch to CSC would probably mean installing iSoft’s Lorenzo software in the southern region, rather than the Cerner Millennium software with which BT is familiar.

Another option being considered by CFH would see trusts in the south of England picking their own suppliers to deliver patient record systems.

Most trusts prefer this option because it allows them more autonomy, but CFH is understood to be concerned that it may lead to further delays because of disparate systems.