In message <[log in to unmask]>, "J.Hearns"
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>
>
>>Isn't the real problem that hospitals are light years behind general
>>practice in using - and appreciating the problems of - IT.. and
>>probably IM as well - BUT try to convince them!
>>Come to think of it, maybe the difference is that,in general practice,
>>it's the doctors setting the agenda
>
>I take your point.
>I don't work in IT or IM&T, however I think it may be that hospitals ARE
>computerised. Most hospitals (as far as I know) have central
>HIS (hospital administration systems). The problem probably is that these
>are older, 'closed' systems from big companies, most probably written and
>installed
>in the days before electronic links to the 'outside' were thought of.
>In order to get electronic messages sent out of these systems, specialist
>code would have to be written, and paid for. And experts on 'electronic
>archaeology'
>who are able to figure out how to add things to systems written ten or twenty
>years ago would have to be found.
Isn't part of the problem the difference in what we mean by
"computerised"? Hospitals may have a hospital administration system -
but when GPs talk about computerisation , we usually mean a system
capable of maintaining a clinical and prescribing medical record - as
well as administration.
Some practices have problems with partners who just don't like computers
- even if the enthusiasts can show the benefits.If you put this into a
hospital context, the hardware and software aren't there - and the
benefits to a harrassed houseman are not evident.
How do you provide instant gratification in a hospital trust? and how do
you get clinical staff - particularly if they are unlikely to be there
long enough to reap the benefits - to invest time and effort if you
don't?
Mary
>
>
--
Mary Hawking
Kingsbury Court Surgery
Church Street
Dunstable
Beds LU5 4RS
tel:01582 601289 (home)
01582 663218 (surgery)
fax:01582 476488 (surgery)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
