Well, well, the season of good will to all men is definitely over!
As the Marketing Manager for GPASS, I would like to respond to Dr Black's posting regarding GPASS, as some of the points he makes are incorrect.
First, the PARTNERS initiative. The impression given is that this is somehow a 'GPASS' initiative and that GPASS is responsible for delaying the rollout of Registration links. GPASS is involved in PARTNERS as one GP system supplier, in the same capacity as Exeter and we are guided by PARTNERS' policy regarding the piloting/rollout of Registration and IoS links. Policy decisions on these matters come from the PARTNERS Project Board.
In any case, given that every practice is being supplied with a comms server and connection to NHSNet, it would seem eminently sensible to roll out reg links once the correct infrastructure is in place - ie once the GP Comms Rollout Project is complete. It is, after all, the reason that these machines are being provided.The ability of this machine to run New GPASS is an important, but secondary consideration. It was specified in line with Scottish Office standards, as is the New GPASS - again, a sensible choice, given that 80% (and still growing) of practices choose to use GPASS. Some practices will use this machine for New GPASS, some will not. Others will be guided by Health Board policy on this matter.
It is interesting to note that most derogatory expressions of opinion on GPASS are made by people with a vested interest in selling commercial products. In these circumstances, could we expect anything other than less than objective or incorrect remarks? Particularly when these opinions are based on "understanding", "belief" and "heard a whisper". Facts speak for themselves.
The full, up to date picture, can be gleaned from our Web site - www.gpass.demon.co.uk - from where you will see that New GPASS has been at Beta test in five practices since the start of December - all running on the Scottish Office Communications Server in fact!
Have a Happy and Prosperous New Year!
----------
From: Alan Black[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 02 January 1998 12:59
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Use of computers in practice
Sorry, I am a Scottish GP and I completely disagree - the Scots have not
got it right. Gpass is an abysmal system and I beleieve that Gpass has
held back the progress of GP computing in Scotland by many years. We are
still pilotting Registration Links - my practice has been doing for nearly
2.5 years!! (We were signed off in fact in July but the Scottish Office
will not roll out Registration Links untill the famous comms boxes ("Joe
Box") has been installed - I beleive that this is purely political as I
understand Gpass still has problems with its application software for
Registration Links). Exeter has been accredited for IOS Links in Scotland
but so far, I have been reliably informed, Gpass hasn't. Exeter has
refused to begin pilotting IOS linksin Scotland until there are clear goal
posts and a clearly defined period of pilotting so that it can be rolled
out in reasonable time.
The famous comms box was specified 2 years ago and is a 166MHz Pentium
which was purchased a year ago and is now well out of date and couldn't be
classed as "cutting edge". The underlying thrust of the "free" computer
suystem is to supply practices with a "free" computer to run the new
version of Gpass which is supposeed to be out soon but has been camouflaged
as a comms box running Windows NT. Unfortunately I heard a whisper that
Gpass is now saying that the comms box may not be powerful enough to run
the new version of Gpass - well, well well. So much for centralised
purchasing etc. If this is what you want - you are welcome to it - I don't!!
Alan Black
At 10:40 02/01/98 -0000, you wrote:
>>From: Ahmad Risk <[log in to unmask]>
>>Subject: Use of computers in practice
>>Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 11:28:25 GMT
>>
>>I am a solo gp. I have Vamp Vision as clinical system. I am not
>>interested in research or all the clever stuff a lot of people go on
>>about these days.
>>
>>Vision costs me 200 pounds a month and that's for the software alone!
>
>If the NHS feels that it is imoportant for NHS reasons that
>we have these monsters and their attendants, rather than
>something simple and cheap, then the NHS should either:-
>
> Pay. Unlikely.
> Buy it.
>
>Yet again the Scots have got it right. Perhaps if we ask
>nicely tehir parliament would take on the NHS as well.
>
>>I find myself now using the computer mainly for 3 functions:
>>
>>1. easy electronic prescribing (I hate writing scripts by hand)
>>2. appointments
>>3. IOS and reg links
>>
>>What about e-prescribing?
>>
>>I actually find it a lot easier and more informative to jot down few
>>notes in the paper record. What the equivalent 'e-jotting'?
>
>paul Rubner's program still does prescribing quite
>adequately for most purposes.
>I think a quick check on allergies, and having a few notes
>that one can refer to on each drug is quite handy, but the
>pages of rubbish one finds in the PPA Dictionary are far
>from useful.
>Have you nioticed that our drug dictionaries are written by
>and from the perspective of Pharmacists? The data
>structure doesn't match doctor think properly, and that is
>one reason why they are so roundly criticised.
>
>>Are there any *really* cut down versions of a clinical system out there?
>>I mean, something, say, under one meg and does e-prescribing and
>
>249 640 bytes this week, doesn't do appointments, does do GPFs.
> but getting there.
>
>
>-----------------------------
>Adrian Midgley
>--- OffRoad 1.9r registered to Adrian Midgley
>
|
