JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for GP-UK Archives


GP-UK Archives

GP-UK Archives


GP-UK@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

GP-UK Home

GP-UK Home

GP-UK  1996

GP-UK 1996

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

RE: Read codes

From:

Dr Jeremy Rogers <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Thu, 8 Aug 1996 19:13:03 +-100

Content-Type:

multipart/mixed

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (54 lines) , application/ms-tnef (54 lines)

>>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








Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
October 2023
August 2023
June 2023
May 2023
February 2023
June 2022
October 2021
January 2021
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
March 2020
January 2020
December 2019
September 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
March 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager