>From without I suggest that your status in the practice is far more
imprtant than the computer system. After that you will find that you are
on your one.
>In message <[log in to unmask]>, Dr David J
>Plews <[log in to unmask]> writes
>>At 20:31 28/09/1996 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>In message <[log in to unmask]>, Stephen J Doyle
>>><[log in to unmask]> writes
>>>>I have just joined a small practice of 1 and 1/2 doctors (I am the half and
>>>>the other one is a husband and wife job-share) which is not computerised. We
>>>>want to computerise this year, and I would like advice from the group as to
>>>>which they think is the most appropriate system. EMIS seems to be a popular
>>>>choice of many. Opinions please. We only get 50% re-inbursement as we are
>>>>not fund holding.
>>>
>>>Stephen,
>>Before you go any further *check* that your HA actually *has* any money for
>>GP computers. If they have, check if they will consider your practice for
>>reimbursement, to what amount of total, etc. Get it all in *writing*.
>>
>>Rotherham HA steadfastly maintains that the NHSE and Treasury have not
>>agreed on any monies for GP computers for this financial year.
>>We live in hope :-(
>
>I thought that computer money had been included in the general pool ,
>i.e. was there but not identifiable. or ringfenced.
>What happened to the supposedly extra money for Links?
>Mary
>>
>>--------------------------
>>Dr David J Plews
>>email: [log in to unmask]
>>
>
--
Donovan Ross
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|