In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Adrian Midgley wrote
> How many practices in the UK, never mind Sheffield actually have a
> MIQUEST interpreter?
There are about ten data collection schemes that have used MIQUEST
and about fifty practices with interpreters. All practices with EMIS
or Meditel systems can get interpreters for free.
> All of them have the native report generators of their systems.
It was the varying capabilities the different reporting systems,
especially the export formats, that was one of the main reasons for
the development of MIQUEST.
> Obviously a MIQUEST/HQL version of the report would be _one_ of the
> various proprietary front ends to the cross-platform back end which
> would itself likely be Excel.
The main advantages of MIQUEST are that it provides a single query
language for multiple (at this stage two) GP systems, and it has the
ability to easily transfer queries and responses electronically to
and from practices. EMIS are working on a facility to use Racal for
this file transfer.
MIQUEST can do most of the data manipulation and aggregation needed.
Excel is only required for those things that spreadsheets do well and
are not worth duplicating like calculating rates and producing graphs.
Andrew Perry [log in to unmask]
Clinical Information Consultancy
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|