From discussion in the NE cluster it's clear that the move is towards your
2nd option, Accenture's version being probably iSoft Lorenzo that is just
under construction. Until then they are seeking to move folk to their
central server farms on to Torex Synergy (with some limitations of
centralisation such as less practice configuration options esp templates) so
that the maximum access can be available across their raft of interim
solutions, and then a more controlled transfer/ ? evolution into Lorenzo.
Their other software includes SAP (LiquidLogic) and shortly child and
community modules.  They talk in terms of having greater integration that
stand alone 'legacy' GP systems will have, but EMIS have always said they
were well up in integrating for single sign on to the portal for the spine/
eBooking etc.   If that is so, you may be right that there isn't a benefit
to change to an interim solution unless you are currently dissatisfied with
you GP system.  The difficulty is that the LSPs and clinical suppliers put a
different spin on this, and it is difficult to know if there will be
unreasonable hassle factors slipped in. I'm sure we need to watch out for
that.

Dr Angus Goudie
Kepier Medical Practice
Leyburn Grove, Houghton le Spring
Tyne & Wear, DH4 5EQ
(0191) 5846324
NEW eMAIL:   [log in to unmask]


-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Hawking [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: 30 July 2004 07:02
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: RE: Best Practice Groups desperate for London GP attendance @
£450 per day

In message <000101c47586$5556b5f0$0201a8c0@tower>, Simon Child 
<[log in to unmask]> writes

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: GP-UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Julian Bradley
>> Sent: 29 July 2004 11:39
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Best Practice Groups desperate for London GP
>> attendance @ £450 per day
>
>> As to things going ahead without GP input, let them.
>> They will fall over and the companies will get the
>> credit they deserve.
>
>Perhaps this a point for Laurie to feed back (RIP EDS and NHSmail...)

I wonder whether Laurie (and anyone attending) could find out more about 
just what it is that we've bought?

There seem to be two scenarios for the future "single record" (NCR):-

1. A central summary record  which is either populated from existing 
databases (and therefore incomplete/potentially inaccurate in unknown 
ways) or purely incremental (and therefore incomplete/potentially 
inaccurate in known ways)
or
2. A central *complete* record, where all encounters of any type are 
entered at the time of the encounter. Again, this could start from a 
basis of importing *all* existing records, or be incremental, with or 
without the importation of summary data from existing systems.

If the former, why do we need to change existing systems at all?
All that is needed is to make sure that existing systems can extract 
specified information in a specified, "spine compatible" format. Being 
able to import unstructured information (e.g. consultations as opposed 
to lab data) would be an advantage - but not absolutely necessary for 
NPfIT.

If the later, why are we having discussions about Primary Care systems 
at all?
Why bother to change GP systems until the problems of ITU and chiropody 
feeding into the same record - remember, this is the *only* record - 
have been addressed?

In either case, doesn't it seem a bit wasteful to develop - and impose - 
interim massive changes - when the one thing certain appears to be that 
any interim solution will be very short-lived?

Bewildered of Bedfordshire

MaryH
PS anyone any idea on how the Veterans Administration (freely available) 
system would do for the NHS?
>
>

-- 
Mary Hawking