Jeremy Rogers <[log in to unmask]> writes
>I do not follow the logic in concluding that the problem lies entirely
>with the system suppliers.
Whooa! I don't see how you read this into my message!
All I said was:
> Some views of
> Read are soured by experience of poorly maintained, and sometimes poor
> software implementations, yet despite this, the earlier versions of Read
> are used very widely.
You replied:
>I've seen this argument many times now: that the reason people dislike
>READ is because of poor software implementation. Certainly I have seen
>some truly DREADFUL pieces of GP software - in which a poor...
I said widely used, not necessarily "liked". I also wasn't particularly
referring to GP systems, but hospital ones, and "Read lists" which some
clinicians have tried to work from. I personally think that the Read
Codes meet most of my GP requirements. I am disappointed that they
don't meet more, but I know that the reason they don't is that the
NHSCCC has quite rightly widened the scope and focus to concentrate on
Read V3 to meet the needs of clinicians in general. That will benefit
me when electronic communication takes off, as it is already starting to
do.
--
Jon Rogers Tel: 44 117 950 7100
Southmead Health Centre Fax: 44 117 944 5498
Bristol BS10 6DF UK e-mail: [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|