Jon (lots of selective snipping):
> I disagree, they need much of the implementation to be defined and
> developed Nationally, such as the message environment, the
> addressing arrangements, the communications mechanisms etc. This is
> because we want the results to be entered into our GP systems, in a
> standard format, and we want our National GP system suppliers to
> support that. They can't do that if every Trust/GP combination does
> whatever works for them.
If you mean 'current' GP systems then that's fine. I am sure there
are cars out there that stll need leaded petrol!
The argument that we national arrangements just because the 'systems'
that we currently have can not handle anything else is like saying
that my patients' complaints will have to fit in with 'my' thinking:
"I have a cold doctor" "No no, you have a verrucca" !
> I do have reservations about NHSnet, but as many Trusts and HAs do
> need to communicate with each other, and do need some national
> structure to work within, it seems logical to use the same mechanism
> for communication with General Practice, unless there are compelling
> arguments against.
I am not sure about this bit "need some national structure to work
within". In other words, that particular argument has not convinced
me yet.
There are no 'compelling' arguments for either!
Ahmad
---------------------------------------------
Dr Ahmad Risk
Gestation: The Medical NetNoire and MADS >;->
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|