[log in to unmask],Net wrote at 19:06 on 11/11/98 
about "Re: RFA & scripts":
-----------------------------

>2-Put a Post-It note on script advising pt to attend for review (and
>documenting this).
>3-(rarely) Issuing a script for a smaller amount, or refusing and
asking pt
>to come in.
>
>Most of the time options 1 or 2 apply. We rely on the patient to come
in,
>merely advising them that they are due review. Most of our patients
comply,
>most of the time. 
Likewise.

>Unfortunately, with the RFA compliant VM6 I can no longer do this - I
have
>to reauthorise a patient's repeat medication to issue a script.
What a monumentally stupid, bureacratic aresholeselfcentred 
prattish change to impose upon decent hardworking GPs.
Whoever it was who generated the change, discussed it in committee, 
wrote and signed the minutes of the ctee meetings and then turned it 
into RFA should be documented here by name and then recylcled.

>I don't
>think the NHS IT folk who write such things have a clue what actually
goes
>on in GP - I suspect they visit one or two practices, and think that
*their*
>way of working reflects all of GP IT practice.
You think they visit?  Anyone seen  an RFA fact finding group visit 
their surgery?  Here we are as the country's nay the world's prime 
collection of cyberdocs, the largest within a uniform system, so if 
we don't have anyone on here who has seen this visit it didn't 
happen.

.........
 
>...... the RFA by its authors
Who are these shadowy powerbrokers anyway?  Where do they live?  
What are their car registration numbers and inside leg measurements. 
Do they take Viagra, or is the power to muck up our businesses 
enough?   We should be told.

>Have any of the other UGs ever
>been asked for their opinion regarding proposed changes to RFA. 
When there was a user group for the legacy system Surgery Manager, 
no, never that I know of and nothing in the UG records.


--- OffRoad 1.9r registered to Adrian Midgley


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%