In article <[log in to unmask]>, Mary Hawking
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>In message <[log in to unmask]>, Ewan Davis
><[log in to unmask]> writes
>>I have been interested to read the responses so far.
>>
>>I should be clear AAH Meditel's position on PRS's proposals is
>>undetermined.
>>
>>My motive in posting was to see if GPs saw the service as something they
>>would wish to support as this would be central to our decision as to
>>whether we look to providing an interface.
>>
>>To repeat a couple of points which were in my posting but which some
>>respondents seem to have missed:
>>
>>The Paper FP10 will still be required and will have to reach the
>>pharmacy before an item can be dispensed.
>
>Sorry, Ewan,
>
>I'm getting a bit confused.. have I missed something?
>If the paper FP10 has to reach the pharmacy before dispensing, what's
>the point of the whole exercise from the *practice* point of view? You'd
>have to follow current proceedures, add electronic ones, - and manage to
>sort the paper FP10s and get them to the correct pharmacist..
Benifit to the practice aren't obvious to me either. I presume that PRS
hope that in time the need for the paper might be removed.
>>
>>The patient retains control of where the script goes, they are free to
>>select a linked pharmacy or an unlinked one as they wish.
>
>So what is the benefit- from the patient's point of view? Does the
>patient select the pharmacy every time they need a repeat prescription?
>Do we need the software ( and staff time! :->) to send individual
>prescriptions to different pharmacists? How much do *patients* need this
>"service"?. In my practice, the few patients who ask the pharmacist to
>deliver prescriptions havea straight forward arrangement;they send in
>the request - tell the pharmacist it is there to be collected - and it
>is delivered.
>"Compliance" would not (IMHO ) be improved by having automatic issue of
>prescriptions - in fact, as the main method of assessing compliance, is
>checking the timing of the repeat prescription request, acccurate
>information on compliance would be unobtainable!
As I understand it patient who wanted to use the system would 'register'
with a participating pharmacy of their choice and would then not need to
contact their GP until script needed reauthorising as GP end would just
keep forwarding repeats as due.
GP would get feedback when items dispensed so I think there would be
better compliance data.
>>
>>PRS have stated that they have NO plans to sell data which passes
>>through the system.
>
>TANSTAFL - there ain't no such thing as free lunch.... and plans can
>change.. this would be a very valuable data base ;->>>>>< - or am I
>paranoid?
>Mary
Just because your paranoid dosn't mean that they are not out to get you.
>
>>Ewan Davis
>>[log in to unmask] - Bromsgrove, UK
>>
>>Managing Director AAH Meditel Ltd - Supplier of EMR Systems.
>>[log in to unmask] Voice +44 (0)1527 579414 Fax +44 (0)1527
>>837287
>
Ewan Davis
[log in to unmask] - Bromsgrove, UK
Managing Director AAH Meditel Ltd - Supplier of EMR Systems.
[log in to unmask] Voice +44 (0)1527 579414 Fax +44 (0)1527
837287
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|