 |
 |
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:12:35 +0000, Ahmad Risk <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:02:25 -0000, TIM WALTER <TIM.WALTER@GP- >K81017.NHS.UK> wrote: > >>I am one of the camp that might pay for it... But it does depend on >whether >>Mr Granger would let us play with his ICRS data spine. Interesting to see >>whether the interface will be published and freely available or whether it >>is a closed shop. If the latter... > >Tim > >There are 2 issues: >1. If you are willing to pay for a system 'outside' the tent, if I were >the vendor of that system, I would make sure you *really* paid. Puts you, >the consumer, at a disadvantage. Simple business and commerce. i don't >expect said vendor will say: 2OK, you're really nice people who have >chosen to pay for my product, therefore, I will give it to you for next to >nothing". > >2. Your second point is more crucial. The national spine has become an >imperative. If achieving it means breaking some eggs, this government, >and its Mr Granger will not hesitate for one minute. Think miners vs >Thatcher. > >As we know, most GPs will choose cash self-interest when it comes to it. > >AR I think there is an important difference between us & the miners, Mrs Thatcher could afford to take on the miners because it was already an industry in decline; general practice is not dead yet! I don't think the government has the stomach to take on GPs with an election 18 months away. I'm not suggesting bloody-minded intratransigence, but we need to stand our ground for the good of our profession & our patients. The goverment's plan for IT will not work without our co-operation & I'm sure they know tat.