Current Accrediation standard - fax machine or other electronic
communication
JohnG
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Gpcg_talk Digest, Vol 11, Issue 39
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:00:03 +1000 (EST)
Send Gpcg_talk mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Gpcg_talk digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Just say no to faxes ( Was: Re: [AusMedicalSoftware] Re:
Results of turning off fax machine?) (David Guest)
2. Re: EHR mailing lists (Gary Spurge)
3. Re: EHR mailing lists (Oliver Frank)
4. Re: Just say no to faxes ( Was: Re: [AusMedicalSoftware] Re:
Results of turning off fax machine?) (Oliver Frank)
5. [Fwd: Paperless in my lifetime?] (Oliver Frank)
6. Re: RE: Coonan: broadband speed satisfactory!!! (Greg Twyford)
From: David Guest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: General Practice Computing Group Talk <[email protected]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], OzdocIT <[email protected]>
Subject: [GPCG_TALK] Just say no to faxes ( Was: Re:
[AusMedicalSoftware]Re: Results of turning off fax machine?)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 14:22:05 +1000
Gary Spurge wrote:
> Accreditation demands we have a fax. This is not a problem. The
> standard does not, to my knowledge, dictate that it be turned on at
> all times.
snip
> I am still a long way short of being paperless. I have run into
> opposition fron an unexpected quarter with a lawyer at MDA National
> have reservations about shredding redundant paper based records.
I didn't know there was an accreditation requirement to have a fax,
although it does not surprise me. It's hard to know what to make of
that. I expect many here were early adopters of fax machines. Having
access to the right information, faster is a quality improvement driver.
Faxes were a great idea when you needed information for paper based
files. Admittedly, in the early days, the thermal paper used to fade
after a year or two. The decay rate of clinical information usefulness
is high so it was not crucial but would present a medicolegal problem in
today's environment.
In today's environment we print to plain paper but also have electronic
medical records and secure electronic communications. Once again it
seems appropriate to abandon old technology and embrace the new.
Manipulating tiff files (or worse paper) is error prone, difficult to
process, not searchable and there is the risk of losing important
information. Perving at pictures is inappropriate in this digital age.
It seems almost pornographic.
> PS. Our fax, an HP 3150 was capable of saving incoming faxes to disc.
> I could then open the message and save it as a TIFF. This could then
> be imported into a patient file. Seemed like a good idea at the time.
> WOTAM.
>
We have refined our system to make it as painless as possible. However,
it still hurts.
I'm with you Brother Spurge. Hail the Anti-Fax League.
> PPS. I will for completion past an abridged answer to OxDocIT
>
That would be the hexadecimal list?
David
<< smime.p7s >>
From: Gary Spurge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: General Practice Computing Group Talk <[email protected]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], General Practice Computing Group Talk
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] EHR mailing lists
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 14:57:12 +0800
Oliver Frank wrote:
Gary, what has happened since you switched off your fax machine?
Hi Oliver,
I have sort of documented the why on the Ausmedicalsoftware site
http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/AusMedicalSoftware/message/2821
We are much happier now.
Patients have to come back or at least pay for scripts and referrals.
No more Divisional or Pharmaceutical company advertising
All those patient requests "Can you please fax this, it's urgent" can be
answered with a polite "No, we don't have a functioning fax machine at the
moment."
I don't really think there has been a significant downside.
Are other parties now emailing their clinical information to you? Are you
using Argus or some other messaging system and asking the other parties to
use it to get their info into your clinical system?
We are slowly getting more information electronically. We have a
gastroenterologist, an Orthopaedic Surgeon and an ENT surgeon sending
electronically. All radiology, pathology and most cardiology investigations
are coming that way.
Baby steps.
Gary
From: Oliver Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],General Practice Computing Group
Talk <[email protected]>
To: Gary Spurge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: General Practice Computing Group Talk <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] EHR mailing lists
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 17:42:21 +0930
Oliver Frank wrote:
Gary, what has happened since you switched off your fax machine?
Gary Spurge wrote:
We are much happier now.
Patients have to come back or at least pay for scripts and referrals.
How does switching off the fax machine help to make patients come back
and/or pay for scripts and referrals?
No more Divisional or Pharmaceutical company advertising
Excellent.
All those patient requests "Can you please fax this, it's urgent" can be
answered with a polite "No, we don't have a functioning fax machine at the
moment."
Love it.
I don't really think there has been a significant downside.
Are other parties now emailing their clinical information to you? Are
you using Argus or some other messaging system and asking the other
parties to use it to get their info into your clinical system?
We are slowly getting more information electronically. We have a
gastroenterologist, an Orthopaedic Surgeon and an ENT surgeon sending
electronically.
Are they doing this via ordinary unencrypted email, encrypted email or
encrypted and automated using a clinical messaging system like Argus or one
of its commercial competitors?
From: Oliver Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],General Practice Computing Group
Talk <[email protected]>
To: General Practice Computing Group Talk <[email protected]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Just say no to faxes ( Was: Re:
[AusMedicalSoftware]Re: Results of turning off fax machine?)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 17:52:33 +0930
David Guest wrote:
I didn't know there was an accreditation requirement to have a fax
I don't think that there is. Am I wrong about this?
From: Oliver Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],General Practice Computing Group
Talk <[email protected]>
To: OzDocIT list <[email protected]>
Subject: [GPCG_TALK] [Fwd: Paperless in my lifetime?]
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 18:25:20 +0930
Oliver Frank wrote:
How does switching off the fax machine help to make patients come back
and/or pay for scripts and referrals?
We were receiving faxed requests from pharmacies for us to forward
scripts. The onus was on us to have to contact the pharmacy to say no or
to contact the patient to say they needed review. with no fax to send
to, the pharmacist had to ring. He could then be told that the patient
needed to make an appointment.
We had specialists secretaries ringing and demanding we fax a referral.
No fax hence the patient had to come to the surgery to pick up a
referral. We do the referral the day it is asked for. The patient gets
it when they come to the surgery. (sometimes for a specific appointment,
sometimes for a fee which covers our administrative costs)
Whatever the mechanism the patient has to come to the building and pay
money for the service to be completed.
Are they doing this via ordinary unencrypted email, encrypted email or
encrypted and automated using a clinical messaging system like Argus or
one of its commercial competitors?
The specialist letters we are currently receiving are coming via a
clinical messaging system. I think they are using Healthlink. (Hard to
tell for certain, they all appear in the same "inbox")
Gary
From: Greg Twyford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: General Practice Computing Group Talk <[email protected]>
To: General Practice Computing Group Talk <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] RE: Coonan: broadband speed satisfactory!!!
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 11:49:38 +1000
Horst Herb wrote:
It failed as expected and predicted, and the vast sums of taxpayers money
disappeared with a fraction of the benefit that could have been achieved
by investing in public broadband infrastructure that could have been
leased at *equitable terms* to all competitors.
Horst,
The basic problem you've touched on is that this government doesn't believe
in public infrastructure.
If the 'market' with a little help, can't fix it, it won't be fixed by
massive injections of money into 'public infrastructure' of any kind.
The basic reason why HealthConnect has become a 'standards framework', not
a health communication system, is that the current government can't bring
itself to invest large sums ['many billions of dollars'] in a public
infrastructure venture.
$1 billion re broadband doesn't really compare, and, anyway, the government
has a schizophrenic view of Telstra, as being not public, despite the
government being the majority shareholder, and likely to remain so for
quite some time, I suspect.
The last examples of big new public infrastructure investment I can think
of was the Alice Springs to Darwin railway and our recent defence
expenditures. Part of the rationale for this railway was 'northern defence'
anyway.
Most of our public health infrastructure is run at state level, with
funding from the Federal government inputted via the Commonwealth-State
funding agreement arrangements.
In addition, the Federal government pays the public's cost of consultations
with private doctors through Medicare but this 'health infrastructure' is
held in private hands, like yours Horst.
Greg
PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
***********************************************************************
The information contained in this e-mail and their attached files,
including replies and forwarded copies, are confidential and intended
solely for the addressee(s) and may be legally privileged or prohibited
from disclosure and unauthorised use. If you are not the intended
recipient, any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure,
modification, distribution and/or publication or any action taken or
omitted to be taken in reliance upon this message or its attachments is
prohibited.
All liability for viruses is excluded to the fullest extent permitted by
law.
***********************************************************************
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
