On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 13:58 +0100, Jeff Green wrote:

> "ETP will increase patient safety by reducing prescription errors and
> providing better information at the point of prescribing and dispensing.
> This also creates the opportunity to reduce adverse drug events where the
> patient responds poorly to medication."
> In conjuntion with Medication Use Review (MUR) 

Which would work as well with a paper system, no?

> >If ETP explicitly does not offer decision support, isn't this a backward
> step and 
> >increase risks - at any rate in the short term ?
> I thought it was an add on to your existing systems?

That would be an additional, decision support, system.



> No but it means that you can avoid that brain numbing half an hour when you
> sign all the repeats.

That would be an interesting thing somewhat apart from ETP...
And of course more similar to divided dispensing with a cancellation
system than to any sort of prescribing...

If we don't need to sign repeats, lets not sign repeats.


>  It means that I might get to see the prescription
> before the patient arrives and get to plan my work rather than forever
> playing catch up.

True that.  WOuld a list of items I _expect_ to prescribe next week,
updated each day, be useful to my nearby Pharmacist do you think?

No problem to pull it off the repeats list.

> >Some of the advantages seem a bit doubtful:



> A slow movement away from a dependency on script numbers 
Oh good.


> >And as to how the removal of decision support during prescribing will
> reduce >"inappropriate prescriptions" - well, I must be missing something
> here!
> Currently I am tempted to only query the outright dangerous prescriptions.
> Given the time - see above about getting the scripts in advance of the
> patient and with MUR (and the payment) I'd be querying innapropriate as
> well.

Oh great.  An argument.  


-- 
Adrian Midgley <[log in to unmask]>