Its just one side of the coin Ian, though you make a good point. One of the main things I ask for from the computer is to get rid of all the mundane tasks so that my own brain is free to make the diagnostic decisions. Not all medicine these days is about making diagnoses (wish it were). There are reams of other stuff we have to produce as well and here the computer really aids productivity as far as I am concerned.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Cheong Sent: Thursday, 22 December 2005 8:47 AM To: General Practice Computing Group Talk Subject: RE: [GPCG_TALK] Picking another package other than MD2 Sorry guys, I am not greatly interested in generating the most data from the least mouseclicks or keystrokes, even though that might keep the powers that be happy. (Medicare and Dr Edelsten have a large legacy.) I am intensely interested in having useful (brain processed) information that I can readily assimilate into the wetware for the purpose of making sound clinical decisions. The more the computer generates, the lower the signal/noise ratio. And the trickier diagnoses are made in the conversation that happens before the diagnostic decision is made. And there are some people out there who have been misdiagnosed for decades because they have sought a (or more than one) professional opinion and been given "an answer" which they figure they have to live with. Ian. At 8:23 am +1100 22/12/05, Dr John Van Dyck wrote: >I wouldn't be so sure....I don't have to type anything to achieve those >progress notes, just one mouse click on "pharyngitis" will do (if I have set >up the shortcut like you in advance) etc etc > >Hopefully then you can whip up a TCA or GPMP or medication review while you >are talking with the patient etc etc > >We both see similar numbers at the surgery don't forget. > >But look, I agree it would not be a contest between software as much as >between how efficiently the users of that software have adapted their >workflow and practices to suit in a real situation. I wasn't envisaging a >showdown apart from real practice. > >Give you and I 15 minutes in which to produce the desired paper output as >well as actually seeing he patient and getting the job done and I might just >win :-) > >I know one thing you would not beat me on and that is if we swapped software >and tried it. Then we would both lose :-) > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >On Behalf Of Horst Herb >Sent: Wednesday, 21 December 2005 10:09 PM >To: General Practice Computing Group Talk >Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Picking another package other than MD2 > >On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:31, Dr John Van Dyck wrote: >> It was more a fun thing than a serious challenge. I firmly believe MD3 >> would win hands down (or in my hands anyway :-)) > >Believe me - you don't stand a chance at all against me and my own program - > >but the point I was trying before is that different people have different >workflows. I suppose nobody else would cope with my program for example as >it >is now, but I myself thrive. > >Imagine typing "dx phar<tab>" and a list selection appears with diagnoses >starting with "pharyngitis" - within your progress notes!, without changing >focus to a different place of your screen! >Hit enter, and write "rx pnc<tab>" and it autocompletes to "Prescribed: >Phenoxymethylpenicillin potassium 500mg 1 tablet 4 times daily for 7-10 >days" >Hit enter and write mc+3d<tab><enter> and it creates a medical certificate >for >the next three days. >Now hit Ctrl+P and it prints both all accumulated scripts, the medical >certificate, and whatever else has accumulated in the print queue for that >patient. It prints immediately, no delay, no dialog boxes etc. because the >print options are all pre-configured of course > >Two assumptions: >1.) it would be very, very hard to make anything more efficient. Maybe even >impossible? >2.) most people won't like it at all, and never would remember most commands > >let alone bother learning them in the first place > >It follows again that different people with different preferences need >different software. I don't believe there ever will be a single "suits all >and everybody" software product for general practice unless it is so >configurable that it will appear as dozens of different products to the end >users after customization - but taking into account that probably a majority > >(?51%) will be reasonably happy with a standard configuration because they >don't know better and can't be bothered to learn better either. > >Horst >_______________________________________________ >Gpcg_talk mailing list >[email protected] >http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk > >_______________________________________________ >Gpcg_talk mailing list >[email protected] >http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk -- Dr Ian R Cheong, BMedSc, FRACGP, GradDipCompSc, MBA(Exec) Health Informatics Consultant, Brisbane, Australia Elected Member, GPCG Management Committee Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (for urgent matters, please send a copy to my practice email as well: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) PRIVACY NOTE I am happy for others to forward on email sent by me to public email lists. Please ask my permission first if you wish to forward private email to other parties. _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
