Colleagues,
I wrote on this list server that the CEO of a group of GPs had written the following statement; " Messaging involves a series of trade offs between high quality IT process and the need for the messages from a GP functional end. " I expressed serious concern that clinical messaging should require any significant level of trade-offs. Chris Scott wrote "Tom, Are you referring to HUDGP? If you are, then this is well out of context to what was discussed last year - which was: (see numbered comments from #1 below. My responses are prefixed >>>>>> ) >>>>>>> Chris, I don't think it'd serve any real purpose identifying the author of that emailed comment on this news-group, however, it was clearly a statement that provided its own context. I am happy to respond briefly to your statements below: 1. Messaging in this county does not work uniformly well across all GP Medical applications >>>>>>> That is unfortunately correct, however thanks to diligent work on the part of a number of parties the situation is not looking too bad now. The following URL points to a table that shows most if not all of the major packages able to send, receive and acknowledge the core AS4700 HL7 message types. Admittedly this list is a little more comprehensive than when you and I last discussed it. As you can see most packages have full functionality as will MD 3 from the next release. http://www.healthlink.net/healthlink_documents/Clinical.Software.Functio nality.Australia.pdf 2. There is a need for messaging now, >>>>>> And there is an increasing volume of real, standards adherent messaging getting done in every state. There is nothing that should hold you up, although I'd urge putting in sufficient effort to do it properly. ....so messaging providers need to provide a service that adjusts to differences in the way GP applications receive and respond. It has to be more than 'what goes in drops out the other side'. >>>>>> I think we have to agree to disagree here Chris. To really do scaleable messaging, crystal clear demarcation is really important, besides, as our table now shows, there is really no need to pursue work-arounds. 3. We don't live in perfect world and have to get on with it. >>>>> Yes , but not at the risk of harming patients by taking needless shortcuts. 4. This country needs standardisation and is well behind. >>>>>>> I agree with you and I am proud that we are in the forefront of getting standardisation happening. Again, take a look at the matrix in the URL above. We have as you know, been working diligently on that for years. And we are getting there. What we now really need is to have influential user groups such as Divisions at the forefront demanding both stringent format standardisation and high quality standards... 5. A solution will involve all parties. >>>>>> I would amend that statement to say "will involve all parties that are committed to using standards correctly", the rest will eventually be left out on a limb. While I think it is now about time that we knocked this debate on the head for now, I have to say that I have yet to read one convincing argument against maintaining a standards-based messaging system that is free of short-cuts and work-around. Kind regards, Tom Bowden CEO HealthLink _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
