As the RCGP Co-chair of the JGPITC I too would strongly recommend that this
document be read as a whole and that practices should make PCTs, STHAs, LSPs
and anyone else attempting to pressure them read it from beginning to end.

Note that it is endorsed by DoH and NPfIT - and "endorsed" really means what
it says.

JGPITC does not equate with the BMA.  It is co-chaired by GPC and RCGP and
has strong user group representation.

Although the document sits on the BMA website its very existence and much of
its content depends on your User groups' input, RCGP, PHCSG and not just GPC
or "BMA".


We continue to work to engage NPfIT in meaningful dialogue but this is
proving to be difficult.
Constructive criticism is always welcome.

John Williams



> -----Original Message-----
> From: GP-UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Ewan Davis
> Sent: 03 June 2004 14:33
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: GMS IT
>
>
> Taking this paragraph out of context is unhelpful and does
> not reflect the
> tone or meaning of the document taken as a whole. There are
> some important
> qualifications as to the conditions that must be met before
> changes refereed
> to in para 4 quoted by Paul should occur.
>
> I'm biased as I was responsible for much of the drafting of
> this document
> but I do belive it represents important commitments from DoH.
> However, if
> they are to be meaningful practice have to hold PCTs, StHAs
> and their Local
> Service Providers to the commitment made on their behalf by the DoH.
>
> If had to pick a few key paragraphs they would be:
>
> "Our advice to GP Practices, which is endorsed by the
> Department of Health
> and the National Programme for IT is as follows: Practices with RFA99+
> accredited systems with which they are currently happy should
> not agree to
> transfer to an alternative system as long as their current
> supplier has
> confirmed their desire to make their system "NPfIT compliant"
>
> ".it is our firmly held view and that of the National
> Programme that such
> replacement should NOT occur unless, and until, a clearly
> better alternative
> is available along with a tested and agreed process for safe
> migration to
> it.
>
> "Practices and their PCTs should not be financially or otherwise
> disadvantaged by choosing to remain with an existing system
> in line with
> this advice or by exercising choice within the limited scope
> described [in
> para. 7 of the full document Ed.]"
>
>
>
>
>
> Ewan Davis - Director - Woodcote Consulting
>                       - Chairman - British Computer Society -
> Primary Health
> Care Group
>
> See our website at www.woodcote-consulting.com
>
> [log in to unmask] Voice +44(0)1527 875340 DDI
> +44(0)1527 875341
> Fax +44(0)1527 871196
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GP-UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dr.
> Paul Steventon
> Sent: 03 June 2004 13:01
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: GMS IT
>
>
> Lots of bland blind pompous  BMA reassurances, then oh look,
> paragraph 4
> says:
>
> snip:
>
> 4. The National Programme for IT may, in due course, require
> the upgrade or
> replacement of existing GP systems with some inevitable
> disruption to GP
> practices in order to lay the foundations for much improved
> patient care
> across the whole health and social care community.
>
> end snip:
>
> Basically they are telling us that the powers that be will be
> doing to us
> what they like when they like and how they like.
>
> And when we eventually protest (far too late) they will say -
> 'We told you
> so in plain language'
>
> We won't have a leg to stand on.
>
> Only those who believe the BMA negotiated us the best
> possible new contract
> will believe they are in any way on top of events in NPFIT.
>
> Paul Steventon
>
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 10:54:06 +0100, you wrote:
>
> >Not sure where Richard Grainger original is but this joint statement
> >from the Joint IT committee of the GPC and RCGP was published last
> >week!!!
> >
> >http://www.bma.org/ap.nsf/Content/NPfIT0404?OpenDocument&High
light=2,NP
>fIT
>