Oliver, If one was to take a good look your statement, then Healthlink is just 1 of many pieces of "proprietary software performing unknown and unverifiable functions on their Servers." Greg has stated that there can often be 7 "diallers" (all potentially proprietary & unverifiable) installed at a practice. Does a GP know what is going on with any others ?? A recent "prescribing habits data" incident comes to mind !! So I would ask, is our problem with Healthlink, or the fact that "Non-certified" Software from all sources, is being thrust upon General Practice in an unstructured way.
Does a GP care what software is installed on his/her site ?? One hopes they do, but in reality a small minority of you do. Does She/He have the ability to verify every package ?? Do they trust someone tasked with installing this software ?? Do they have a choice ?? I guess the fact that Healthlink are still around and growing suggests that the arguments against their product presented to date, aren't stacking up. Maybe we need some new ones. But I'm going to suggest that it wasn't the thrust of your email anyway ??? I'm certain I've got that right :) !! If the problem was with Healthlink, then I think we need some new arguments. The old ones are becoming a little repetitive, and starting to loose their punch. !! Your comments are usually well informed and highly respected, so can I suggest that we all need to put our efforts into some sort of "Certification" process for software used in the Primary HealthCare sector. I know we have mentioned this before, and I know there are things in place to make some of this happen. Just by the by, I would suggest that Healthlink would be one of those packages that would almost certainly be "certified" (dependant on the appropriate criteria of course). If there was a process in place for certification (with criteria we all agree on), then we would have a chance to take emotional comments out of the play. Respectfully Barry Lollo Townsville Division. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Oliver > Sent: Wednesday, 1 November 2006 1:42 PM > To: General Practice Computing Group Talk > Subject: [GPCG_TALK] RE: News From HealthLink > > From: Tom Bowden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, 1 November 2006 9:02 AM > > > HealthLink now connects more than 60% of Australian GPs > > Let's add some more to flesh out this statement, to try to > make the picture more complete: > > "HealthLink now connects more than 60% of Australian GPs", > most of whom > are completely unaware that they are using HealthLink. This > is mostly > because HealthLink has been installed on GPs' practice > computer systems by somebody else, usually a pathology > practice or medical imaging practice, often without any > knowledge or involvement by the GPs. One could say that this > is a good thing, because there is no reason why GPs should or > would want to know about all this techo stuff, or one could > say that it is a bad thing, because GPs have proprietary software > performing unknown and unverifiable functions on their servers. GPs > have not actively chosen to use HealthLink. It was chosen by > other parties in the health system, for reasons which those > other parties have not explained to or discussed with GPs. > > > Oliver Frank, general practitioner > 255 North East Road, Hampstead Gardens > South Australia 5086 > Ph. 08 8261 1355 Fax 08 8266 5149 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
