Peter MacIsaac wrote: "In brief the value of SCT will need to be looked at in terms of functionality of their current IT systems and where the users expect to be in future. (The aim is that the end user should not be making decisions or even knowing that they are using SCT (once appropriate interfaces have been developed- we might be a bit away from that at present.)"
Hi Peter But what will clinicians really get out the interface after it is specified and developed? There are already interfaces out there that have controlled medical vocabulary and decision support systems running off them. What is the real benefit of having SCT behind it instead of DOCLE or ICPCPLus for example? As far as the GP is concerned it is just a big list of words - I would argue that most of the vendors would see it as a just a big list of words as well. It is a little disconcerting that after so long for a national license to be obtained (at some expense I would imagine) that it seems to be somewhat difficult for benefits to roll off the tongue over the existing systems and terminologies that are already in place. To get the debate going I have thrown out some questions to help Jon along Will SCT result in better care? If so how? Will SCT make GPs more money? If so how? Will SCT mean that GPs are less likely to be sued? If so how? Will SCT make software development easier? If so how? Will SCT make software licensing cheaper? If so how? Unless you can mount these types of arguments I wouldn't worry about interface design - these types of things need to be shown if it is going to be implemented and demonstrable differences are going to be obtained. Geoff _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
