Richard Terry wrote:
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 00:33, gspurge wrote:
Richard Terry wrote:
wouldn't single out Medtech for criticism. (Who I think are being really
unfairly picked on), as there are problems across the board. I took part
in an intensive evalution of many of the major software programs 12/12
ago.
Australia desperately needs an open source solution. The problem with
GP's not getting the software they need from the MSI is a grumbling
continuing problem which will never go away.
The state of all the major players (except Profile which I think is
conceptually light years ahead of anything on the market - but has enough
deficiencies to make using it difficult in Australia) is woefull.
We are now stuck with MDW for at least the next decade. Most of the
available software is 'kindergarten software', with a long history of
'bolt on solutions', because they programs lack conceptual vision. I take
my hat off to paperless practices using MDW, but then I guess you get
used to anything - sort of like a bad marriage which you can't leave. BP
despite some advantages I think has major conceptual design flaws and is
little more than nextgen MDW with new clothes.
Hi Richard,
Now that you have left us with no useful options, can you expand upon
the criteria that you judged all the other software by.
I would like to know what the currently available software is missing
that makes you label it as 'kindergarten software' and what the right
"conceptual design" is. Maybe all is not lost with the current choices.
When all is said and done, they are all we have (unless you are
suggesting we return to paper).
Gary
Sure, I'll try and do what you request, if you identify yourself to me as to
who your are/job/organisation, as I'm not familiar with many on this list and
would like to know the context.
Regards
Richard
Hi Richard,
I am the practice principal or a small urban General Practice. 2 - 5
Doctors depending on what is available. I started out life wanting to be
a rural GP, ended up becoming a medical superintendent and then returned
to General Practice in 1993. Had some experience (but only as an
enduser) with HDWA and their efforts at computerising regional WA before
re entering General Practice when I had decided that being a sub
contractor had to be easier than employing doctors and having to work
with lots of stakeholders. Unfortunately as a sub contractor I remained
unhappy as I struggled with how inefficient General Practice seemed to
be as a small business. Hence I built my own practice and it runs the
way I want it to run. If others want to work at my premises I am happy
to talk with them. But I am also happy to work solo. I like playing with
electronics. I don't know how to write computer programs and have no
interest in learning how to. That is who I am.
My (probably odd) view on the function of a medical record is (and I am
making this up as I type, so forgive obvious omissions)
1. It should act as an aide memoire when I am providing further
treatment for a patient.
2. It should provide sufficient information for another doctor to
manage my patient, in my absence. (an accreditation standard)
3. It should provide sufficient detail that I can explain my thoughts
and actions in the event a claim is made against me. (a MDO
suggestion)
4. It should provide sufficient detail that I can justify the item
descriptors and/or numbers that I have charged. (a medicare
requirement)
5. It should assist me in providing the highest standard of care
possible. (including reminders, drug information)
6. It should not impede upon my ability to practice medicine in the
way I choose (think intrusive reminders/pop ups, advertisements etc)
7. It should allow me to one day retire, without leaving me a full
time, unpaid job having to forward medical records on to those
practitioners who take over my patients.
I am still bumbling my way through getting my records to satisfy all the
criteria I have listed but have come a long way since moving from MD2 to
BP. Frank has mentioned on the BP forum that he is looking at reviewing
the history and examination modules in BP and also its skin, in the
fullness of time. Frank has listened to user suggestions in the past, so
it appears now is as good as time as any, for someone like me to make
any suggestions as to what changes could be made that would make the
program work better for me. (it works well enough for me in its current
state that I harbour no thought on changing program).
Your post, where you mentioned you had assessed EHRs and passed
judgement on "conceptual design" was of interest to me. I was hoping you
may have a developed set of criteria that one would expect to see in an
EHR as well as thoughts on how the same information could be displayed
in different ways so as to satisfy the differing expectations of
practitioners and those who would judge us.
I have looked at the links Tim supplied to on the gnumed site, but
couldn't find the answers I was looking for.
Cheers
Gary
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
