On Tuesday 16 May 2006 00:30, Andrew Magennis wrote: > Liz > The interview for this piece was quite some months ago. I believe that a > sub editor has taken a comment I made about the likelihood of all players > using a given standard as being unlikely and stuck it in here. My comment > was made in the context of describing the current non-use of the current > Australian Standard for Pathology Results transfer and how so few Path Labs > actually use it. > > I believe that I speak generally on behalf of all of the main stream > clinical and front desk software houses when I say that all I have spoken > to about standards are very keen for their introduction - with the obvious > proviso that who ever made then, actually knew what they were doing. No one > wants to follow the adoption of a "standard" that is wrong for the task at > hand. Andrew
thanks Andrew, because it just didn't seem right. -- BOFH excuse #196: Me no internet, only janitor, me just wax floors. _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
