>>Are we really to believe that the developers of Meditel, VAMP,
>>Emis et al are all so incompetent ? Or that GPs are just misguided as
>>users ?
>
> Hang on a minute! - Did anyone say that?
As my message to Jon Rogers hopefully clears up, I recognise that it was not his intention
to make the claim that the problems with READ lay with the suppliers. So, no, nobody has made
this claim on GP-UK. It has, however, been made on previous occasions by NHSCCC in meetings
with suppliers.
> Your perjorative words maybe reflect your personal opinion but not that of the
> current discussions by Jon Rogers or myself.
I'm just trying to play devil's advocate; forgive me if I'm inclined to leap down a few throats. It has
previously been difficult to ask the questions I'd like to of the CCC, and Jon and Rob appear to
be among the few close to the centre who are currently discussing things publicly.
GP-UK is often host to mailings from 'ordinary' GPs (if, being Internet users, they can be considered
such) who complain of their problems with READ. I'm sure you'd agree that their experience is
representative of a large number of GPs. Each such complaint is met by a gentle explanation that
the problem lies with the user and/or his system - the code is there, but either they haven't looked
in the right place or hard enough, or perhaps the system is too unfriendly to find it. Elswhere, we're
all assured that the new, improved version of READ will be much better.
There is an alternative view, but it isn't often heard within the UK.
> The GP-UK dialogue on clinical coding is now very detailed. Anyone out there
> feel it's too much or is it of general interest?
There is much that is positive about the Clinical Terms Project and the contribution of earlier versions
of READ to GP computing and UK healthcare IT in general. But Healthcare IT has moved on from home
grown GP systems and coding schemes to become a whole new ball game. READ 3.1 and the Clinical
Workstation Project represent just the UK branch of an international healthcare IT race. It would be an
expensive mistake if the profession puts its support behind technology that does not deliver.
READ 3.1 will succeed or fail (overlooking the obvious political expedient of redefining success)
on its technical details, not its scope (which isn't in question).
GP-UK is an important forum which may influence the profession in its approach to IT generally.
Some part of the profession has to be aware of, and understand, the *full* detail of READ and also
know the alternatives. It would be unfortunate if the arguments about detail were deemed too
complex, or irrelevant, for this forum. If not here, then where?
Jeremy Rogers
|