On Sunday 11 March 2007 04:54, Peter MacIsaac wrote:
> In recent discussions about receiver responsibilities, both in Australia
> and at HL7, it has been suggested that the acknowledgement response to a
> HL7 result message should come from the GP application, not the
> communication client.
>
> This ensures that the sending pathologist for example at least knows that
> the report has made it into the referrers application. I understand that
> there have been examples of reports falling into the void at that level ie.
> Pathology system feels that delivery has been acknowledged and GP system
> does not really have it.
But getting into the application still does not guarantee that it has got into
the practitioner's brain. No system guarantees that. One of my associates
happily stamps every path report on paper as read, never checks the on-line
version unless the patient is present, and feels that he pays his medical
defence premiums to deal with the aftermath.
--
BEWITCHED, DOES NOT PROMOTE SATANISM
BEWITCHED, DOES NOT PROMOTE SATANISM
BEWITCHED, DOES NOT PROMOTE SATANISM
BEWITCHED, DOES NOT PROMOTE SATANISM
Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 2F17
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
