Richard Hosking wrote: > It is obviously hard to show any direct evidence, but I think > computerized prescribing is an advance on the previous situation. > I would suggest that better legibility and past records have probably > saved lives and certainly reduced morbidity > There was an almost universal takeup of computers by GPs in the > interval approx 1997-2002. This was achieved in the face of no real > business case (in fact significant cost) as far as the GP was > concerned. Govt spent only $50M or so to achieve this.
Last night on TV Homer Simpson had a heart attack. He wasn't worried initially. He noted that "the US health system was second only to Japan's, ... and Holland's, ... and Norway's, ... well most of Europe actually". Can we show that computerised primary care in Australia is better than US largely non-computerised primary care or are there too many uncontrollable variables? > Unfortunately there hasnt been much progress since. Due to inertia and > worries about risk and the usual issues between states and Feds, the > messaging space has been captured by commercial interests. (Healthlink > in SA and WA at least) Now the opportunity for very significant > savings and public benefit will be lost if a national health record > controlled by Govt is not created. The large corporate groups will > fill the void and we will pay dearly as a result. I am not as worried about the messaging space as I was, now that more open players like Medical Objects are emerging. EHR data manipulation is still a complete mess of course with no obvious solution on the horizon. ;-( David -- For secure communication with the GMC see http://gmc.net.au gpg key Secure Mail (Current 10 February 2005) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x9CAE0C53 at keyserver.medicine.net.au _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
