Interesting article in HSJ - but I think it gives rather a rosy picture of
general practice IT!
http://www.hsj.co.uk/5086614.article#.VZDxSUZciwQ
In particular, my recollection of the mass implementation of IT in general
practice was that it was largely due to the introduction of targets in the
1990 new GP contract - meaning that you needed to know both who was
registered and who had *not* had specified service for which they were
eligible - and the financial consequences of this for both the practice and
the individual GPs funding - and using - the GP system installed!
Diverting some of the funding previously allowed for staff and premises to
supporting 50% of IT funding came at the expense of total control of the
required functions for GP IT systems (remember RFA?): whether this was A
Good Thing depends on your point of view...
Knowing who was registered and management of repeat prescriptions definitely
an asset - but the downside of computerisation (worse in practices who are
actually paperlite) is the greatly increased amount of time needed for data
entry - and the opportunities for increasing workload and micromanagement
eagerly seized by TPTB (The Powers That Be)
So I am not sure that the drivers towards paperlite records in hospitals are
the same as they were in general practice.
Why doesn't anyone start with a correspondence file, medication and
investigations - both completed and pending? Add in recorded allergies and
much of the benefit to patients could be realised fairly quickly - without,
I'd agree, the ability necessarily micromanage secondary care in the way
TPTB can now micromanage general practice!
Mary Hawking
Retired from NHS on 31.3.13 because of the Health and Social Care Act 2012
"thinking - independent thinking - is to humans as swimming is to cats: we
can do it if we really have to." Mark Earles on Radio 4
blog http://maryhawking.wordpress.com/ And Fred!
http://primaryhealthinfo.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/can-integrated-care-satisf
y-all-of-freds-needs-including-patient-empowerment/
|