Oliver Frank wrote:
> Greg Twyford wrote:
>> Colleagues,
>>
>> I'm posting this on behalf of one of my Division colleagues:
>>
>> hi all,
>>
>> Our division is attempting to get behind one of these two applications
>> to try to standardise our practices. I would greatly appreciate any
>> information on which of these products you are using including any
>> feedback you have received, pre or post implementation.
>
> My practice has installed both products. My experience of using them is:
>
> 1. For receiving letters and other messages, they both work in that they
> both deliver incoming letters to my clinical inbox.
>
> I have found that test letters that I sent to myself via Medical Objects
> lose all formatting (e.g. in my practice letterhead) and also don't
> transmit my scanned handwritten signature that is part of my letter
> template. I haven't received letters from anybody else yet via MO as
> far as I know (apart from a test message from MO), so I don't know
> whether the loss of formatting is peculiar to letters that I send via MO
> or whether this will happen to letters from everybody else too.
Medical-Object converts your rtf letter to a native HL7 format (Free
Text) which only has bold as formatting. It also transmits the rtf but
we made the assumption that letterheads etc were just screen clutter and
your would only want to see the clinical information and not the
formatting. It would be possible to give you rtf if you really want it!
Any specialist using Medical-Objects can see either version, the native
HL7 one or the rtf one, so they will see the rtf document unchanged.
However I think moving away from non standard formats is the best long
term option.
It also includes the digital signature which means that you do not have
to send the paper as well. With Argus you are required to send the
referral as paper as well as it is not a legal referral.
>
> Argus preserves the formatting and images in letters that I have
> received, including test ones from myself - including my practice's
> letterhead and my scanned in signature.
>
>
> 2. For sending letters, the processes differ because of the different
> ways in which each package works.
>
> Medical Objects:
>
> The Medical Objects client Trinity is called each time you copy a piece
> of text. For me, this has turned out to be a nuisance when I am copying
> text for reasons other than wanting to send a letter via Medical
> Objects. Because of this, I keep the MO client closed unless I actually
> want to send a letter via MO, in which case I have to start the MO
> client manually.
>
> Having copied the text of a letter to send, you paste the text of the
> letter into the MO send window that has been called by the act of
> copying the text (or in my case, which I have opened manually). You
> then have to enter the name of the doctor or other person to whom you
> are sending your letter. There is a facility to search the MO server
> for the person that you want. You then also have to enter the patient's
> name and date of birth by typing them in each time - there is no
> facility to store these details so that they can be chosen from a list,
> or to look up the practice's database of patients. Once these details
> are completed, you hit 'send', at which point you are asked to digitally
> sign the letter by entering the password for your individual iKey
> dongle that you have already plugged in to a USB port. The letter is
> then sent.
It will pickup the information automatically if it is in the letter and
you can change the trigger, by default its "re:"
if your letter contains eg:
Re: Oliver Frank
DOB: 23/1/1980
then it will be picked up automatically.
> Of course it makes no sense that all of the messaging providers except
> Argus paradoxically discourage and inhibit free communication by
> preventing users of their system from being able to communicate with
> users of any other clinical messaging system. We need a user of any
> clinical messaging system to be to communicate with any user of any
> other clinical messaging system. I understand that there has recently
> been a meeting of the clinical messaging providers to address this
> obvious need, but I haven't heard about what happened at that meeting.
>
>
Well Medical-Objects is the only one that can inter-operate with Argus
at the moment and has the provider directory publicly available. Argus
is reluctant to give us access to their provider directory it seems.
Andrew McIntyre
Medical-Objects
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
