Declan wrote:
[Snip loads of good stuff]
> But the biggest drawback----and I speak from personal experience > here
friends----to efficient and cost-effective use of computers in
> practice is simply this; the inability of GPs to agree on anything.
Oh, how true.
It seems to me that the application of technology to any environment goes
through three phases. First, things are actually less efficient, while
people get used to the technology, and the technology itself becomes more
relevant to the environment. Then, you get to the stage where efficiency is
roughly where it was before the technology arrived; finally, you move
forward to genuine improvements.
There are dozens of examples of where the application of technology has
stalled at the second stage - eg the use of cars in London, where average
speeds haven't really changed in a century, with the new technology merely
allowing far more people to move at the same slow rate. With GP computing,
we seem to be stuck in the first phase - most surgeries employ staff purely
to serve the needs of their computer.
It's laughable, really. Would anyone buy a washing machine if you still had
to do just as much work by hand?
This is the first year that using a computer has made my surgery more
efficient. I've shed over 45 hours per week of staff time, by writing my own
system, which does _precisely_ what I want, how I want it done. The trouble
is, it has been hard enough to achieve consensus with my three partners on
what this sentence should mean, let alone interpreting it in a way that is
equally applicable to others.
But, don't lose hope. It can be done.
Prit
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|