Essentially, different healthcare systems have different needs which are reflected in how their electronic health record systems are architected. For example, EHRs in the US are optimized for billing, and if you're moving an US-centric EHR, like Epic, to a country like Denmark with universal healthcare, all that functionality becomes superfluous. Not to mention the language differences, as well, which are touched upon in the article. It's possible that similar concerns played into the NHS's decision to build their own system. Some NHS trusts are moving forward with their own Epic implementations, however. For example: https://www.digitalhealth.net/2018/06/royal-devon-exeter-nhs...

I said it must have been interesting, lots to learn about. She replied that the NHS was the best in the world and there was nothing to learn about from anyone else in any respect.

Sadly, although I remain convinced many people must be slogging against the system, I suspect she isn't alone in that view.

The current Secretary of State at the Department of Health and Social Care is pushing open standards and interoperability, but has an idealogical attachment to private companies providing software after competitive tender.

Which is silly given who actually owns large parts of British infrastructure but... We have a confluence of shitty corrupt middle managers masquerading as politicians and a terrible press.

I honestly have come to the conclusion that the UK is pretty fucked in the mid to long term.