whereas when you are a contractor, the practice nurse bugs you to check and clear the electronic path reports, and the receptionists bug you to clear the pigeon hole , and everything gets double checked, but that doesn't guarantee the path company doesn't send the report nowhere , or to some other med practitioner's application elsewhere. It's also optional to correlate ordered investigations with received investigations, so much of the time, only the received investigations get checked. This is a big flaw in medical applications, as this is probably important enough not to make it optional, but part of the daily emr duties .
On Sun, 2007-03-11 at 07:37 +1100, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > 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. > _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
