> Rob Hills <[log in to unmask]> writes
> > There was a thread recently on the impact of computerisation on
> > medical practice. I wonder if anyone on the list knows if any
> > studies have been done comparing manual prescribing with
> > computerised script generation ? I am particularly interested in
> > the subject of speed of script generation (as opposed to
> > quality). It seems to be common folklore that, on average,
> > computerised prescribing is much quicker than its manual
> > counterpart, but when asked to justify this scientifically, I find
> > myself "referenceless"!!
On 6 Jul 96 at 6:25, Mary Hawking wrote:
> Should we look at the process of prescribing as a starting point? I
> am making the assumption that this is the same in all systems - not
> just the NHS - but that might be unjustified... Prescriptions are
> divided into two types (as regards issuing them) - acute and repeat.
So far, this is the same in Australia.
> I don't think there can be any argment regarding repeat
> prescriptions. Computer prescribing ensures that all
> prescriptions are recorded,over and under usage can be identified ,
> review dates can be set - and the chemist can read the
> prescription...! It also saves having to :-
> -get someone to find the MRE
> -writing on the corrrect card
> -re-filing the MRE
I guess that the problem for me is that as one of "the faithfull",
all I ever get to do is discuss it with "the converted" !!! The
difficulty arises when trying to convince the ignorant (cross out,
cross out), er, the sceptics, and for that, one needs hard data.
It seems to me that the time is ripe for a study to examine the issue
objectively to prove one way or the other those things that we take
for granted.
Rob Hills
MBBS, Grad Dip Com Stud, MACS
Rx Medical (Creating Quality Healthcare Software)
22 Hardy Street, South Perth, WA 6151, Australia
Phone: +61 9 474 1977 Fax: +61 9 474 1922
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|