[log in to unmask],Net writes:
>From: John Coulthard <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: RE: RE: Locality Communications
>Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 20:32:32 +0100
>I understand that the EPACT Trial is going to be extended. I can
>understand why the information would be restricted but surely not if
>the GPs
>want to know about their own prescribing. That decision is of course
>for
>the application provider to address.
>Jon Rogers and the NW Bristol Locality are using EPACT and seem to
>derive
>useful information from it. Perhaps Jon could explain how he managed
>it.
>John
Could you possibly place on the record, on the Web, a statement
relating to the distribution of or availability to GPs of th eepact
version of their own data, please.
I am a member of the local prescribing information group, and one of
the other members is in a practice which used to have Jane Richards as
a partner while she was PPA medical adviser.
THey got electronic info on disc in the flavour then current, but when
she retired they were told they could no longer have it. They want it
and miss it and were used to using it.
We asked in PIG if we could have it and NO. Much too sensitive info
(real answer I think is more like "don't have to do that")
If you stick up a persistent note, I will point from the PIG pages too
it and re-ask the questions. Matter of fact, I suspect that a great
many of these apparent confusions arise because people in NHS admin
simply lie instead of either checking or making sensible changes within
their area of competence and authority. But then I suspect everything,
nowadays.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|