john dooley wrote: > A tad harsh Horst. How about you step back a little and try and see it > from the other side for a while... > > Everyone is quick to criticise us but somewhere the balance has been > lost and now general practice just demands electronic delivery even if > they have never sent a path specimen to a company. So we have GPs > ringing up demanding the download client after 2 hardcopy copy to dr: > reports. I agree. The real problem here is many docs expect handholding and tech support from the message sender (whether path., HealthLink, et al.) and the only way build a business model to support that by cross-subsidizing is various forms of lock-in, otherwise it's just free IT support for GPs with no reward.
I just wish people would be honest and admit that, instead of pretend technical justifications for proprietary solutions. The other problem is PIT has no standard for acknowledgment, so path. companies are reliant of their own downloader to acknowledge replies. > How about you GP IT guys get together and write or at least participate > in getting GPland a universal download client so that everyone can send > results you and promise not to phone if you cannot get results when its > installed on the pc in the tea room, and take ownership of the issue a > bit? That way you would solve your IT support problems yourselves? > Now there's an idea ;-) Ian _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
