 |
 |
> "Accident in space-craft" stuff One of my personal favourites in ICD! > aids me in reporting, analysing and in decision support in my practice and in my > communications with my hospital and with other practices when my > patients move away.... I agree that this is the holy grail of all of us; I liked the specification given a week or so ago in which our General Practice systems would stay awake all night sifting through our data finding new ways to make money or (heaven forfend!) make people better. Basically, we all have the impression that for all the data we are busily typing in - and the even greater volumes which it is suggested we SHOULD be typing in - we don't seem to get very much benefit. >>What criteria would you put forward to determine whether you *had* got >>a working version of READ 3.1 ? How would you test whether those criteria >>had been met ? > > When it can be used to fulfil the above requirements. I would have thought that, after committing so much money to such a high profile, publically funded project as the READ codes, there would have been in existence from the start a more detailed and formal evaluation methodology. This is a bit like saying 'it works when it works'. How will we know if, in fact, READ can *never* fulfil the above requirements? Is anybody prepared to contenance this as a possibility? There is certainly no prior proof, as far as I know, that it can satisfy these requirements. > The GP SWG is working with a number of technical advisors from GP system > suppliers (there is also a parallel group for the hospital side) and the > NHSCCC to define what is required before we can implement. I'd be interested to hear what they're thinking. > Jeremy, it is a continuing source of distress to me that NHSCCC and > Galen still do not seem to be using each others undoubted resource > fully. We all want much the same thing, each of us has different > strengths to bring it about. Any thoughts on how to do it? I can assure you that GALEN feels the same way. An offer to undertake some research collaboration was made last summer, but declined. Jeremy Rogers