I wonder how much of this comes down to Professional pride. It surprises me the rubbish that people will send out; the excuse is often that there is "not enough time" or "I didn't know how to change it."
If your carpenter couldn't sharpen his tools, or couldn't saw in a straight line, you would question his ability. Computerised EHR is the professional tool of the doctor. It all smacks of lazziness and poor professionalism to me. Michael Greg Twyford wrote: > Cedric Meyerowitz wrote: > >> You wtote: Drug interaction databases need to be not dangerous (example a >> patient being allergic to Bactrim but the doctor can happily prescribe >> Trimethoprim) >> >> The problem is not with the software developer but with the Doctor >> using the >> software. When there was a big uptake of IT by GP's a few years ago, >> when >> HIC offered all this money for IT uptake, there were lots of articles >> published about GP's printing scrripts with default settings of the >> program >> - ie. Take 1-2 tablets when eyedrops were prescribed etc. I still >> regularly >> see scripts generated elsewhere, where the Doctor hasn't bothered to >> set up >> the margins. I still regularly get new patients and there health >> summary >> contains the same diagnoses twice, the same drugs are prescibed twice >> (example Losec 1 nocte, Probitor 1 nocte) - only because the Doctors >> don't >> know how to use there software, or they can't be bothered. >> When it comes to allergies: Bactrim allergy implies allergy to Bactrim. >> That implies save to give Trimethoprim. If the allergy was to >> Trimethoprim, >> the Doctor should enter the allergy as Trimethoprim. We all have >> patients >> that are sensitive to Valium, but they can safely take Ducene. Thus >> there >> is a difference in how one enters a allergy. I still have female >> patients >> that claim Triphasil didn't agree with them, but Triquilar is 100% okay - >> yet is exactly the same drug. Amoxil allergy again does not imply a >> Penicillin allergy. >> >> Cedric > > > Cedric, > > My take on this problem is that the funding to Divisions for training > their members cut out way too soon, and the powers that be thought that > if a GP had a PC on their desk, they could do anything and everything > the powers imagined with it. Some Divisions are still running training > programs, and yes what you describe is still, unfortunately, not uncommon. > > Another variant is having everything ever prescribed in the current > medication list because everything is selected as 'regular'. This annoys > specialists, of course, who discover that the patient isn't on most of > the stuff in the referral letter. Only a few months ago one GP asked why > some of the listed medications for a particular patient were in red. > > I think what you are saying is that we need to certify the doctor's > capacity for using their clinical software as well as the software > itself. Mr Abbott quoted a study late last year that obviously made him > aware that everything isn't rosy in this particular garden, but to date > there's been no action other than some changes in the PIP incentives, > which were long overdue anyway. > > Enough GPs I know have developed good skills, are conscientious, and > make their software work for them and their patients, for me to feel > that efforts to continue offering training are worthwhile. > > Greg > _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
