Tim Churches wrote:
Surely a bowel screening register should be run by the same people who
run the State/Terr-based pap smear registers, as the nature and scale of
the operation such registers is rather similar?
Ah...I'm glad that you mentioned our friends at the Pap smear
registries. They have been sending us forms in the post when patients'
smear are overdue, and asking us complete the forms by hand and post or
fax them back.
I have explained to them that in my practice we have not written our
medical records on paper for some years, that we no longer have any
paper files in which to keep patients' records, that we don't want paper
coming in to our practice from anybody else and that, having gone to a
lot of trouble to get all of the clinical information into our computer
system, we definitely don't want to write or type out that information
which is already stored there, such as patients' demographic details and
the details of their most recent smear tests.
I suggested that they start communicating with us in both directions via
an electronic clinical messaging system and pointed them to a provider
(no prize for guessing which one) and I believe that they are currently
looking into it.
I am asking every other government, QANGO or private agency, such as
Workcover, that wants to send us notices or forms to fill in about
patients also to start using an electronic clinical messaging system.
Many of them seem to be quite interested and some of them have contacted
my preferred provider of clinical messaging to start working out how
they will use it.
Ian Cheong said:
"Electronic functionality will be June/July (?i think) for lodgement on
a web site (without auto population of the forms from the clinical
software) or for integration into the clinical software - which will
print paper to be sent to the register."
Ian, it is time for GPs and all of our GP organisations to tell the
bowel cancer screening registry very clearly that sending paper in
either direction is definitely not acceptable, and that we want to
communicate electronically via a clinical messaging system. I will
contact the RACGP and AGPN about this for their action.
"Electronic receipt of the pathology report result of the FOBT tests was
not envisaged - we expect a letter in the mail, even though the provider
can surely send HL7 path messages - I will follow-up this to double check."
Ditto.
"If ever there was a good demonstration project for NeHTA to get
involved in to save some paperwork, National Bowel Cancer Screening
initiative is it. Oh well. "
I refuse to say: "Oh well", because I have seen for myself the
significant results of explaining our situation clearly and stating our
expectations clearly. I have learned over the past year or two that the
leadership on this issue of electronic communication has to come from
GPs. Perhaps this is because we are the most heavily computerised group
of health care providers in the country, or perhaps it is because we
have less money to waste than other parts of the health system.
--
Oliver Frank, general practitioner
255 North East Road, Hampstead Gardens, South Australia 5086
Phone 08 8261 1355 Fax 08 8266 5149 Mobile 0407 181 683
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
