[log in to unmask],Net writes:
>I can do less with my new sytem than I could with my old (in terms of
>drugs) - my patients cannot have their repeat prescriptions - my staff
>are handwriting scripts that Genisyst would print.....
>OK - so it is an operational problem that will be fixed next week (I am
>told) - but they are and were aware of it but just kept quiet - maybe
>they thought we wouldnt notice! I am furious at their arrogance - if
>they had the balls to tell us then we could have made contingency plans
>- instead we were left fall in the pit.
Ain't it a bugger.
Our current stuff only prints one item per page of FP10, but I can't
blame anyone else for that <g> and d'y'know, I find it is popular
enough.
The experience, which I think is by no means hidden, of many is that
there is a dip in performance, both clinical and financial which was
quoted by Richard Johnson as lasting 16 months, after a change of
clinical record system.
One might reasonably think ill of any company which purely in order to
swell their profits and maintain their flagging market share bought
another company and imposed a change of software upon users.
Given the drop in performance which creeps in over the year or two or
for AMC users, many years, one might think ill of the IM&T leadership
of the NHS, for neither preventing the market operating, nor providing
the finance needed to make a rapid change of system in the first month
or so of a take-over.
I say again, the profession should take charge of its software, by
commissioning the systems required, assembled from standard components,
with any bespoke componenets sourced and either bought in perpetuity or
even better bought as source-code, non-exclusively.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|