Chris wrote: > How about one of you people who know a lot about such things, putting > together a simple document that can be "offered" to the various path > companies stating this common sense idea? > Something that says something like: > 1. software will only be installed once its contents are known > 2. Will be installed by in-house support delegate > 3. Must have full instllation instructions, > > Etc etc > > Whatever makes sense. If this document existed, maybe a concerted effort > might just change something! >
But Chris, Drs dont want to pay for the software, dont want to develop it and definitely dont want to pay for their own IT guys to have to come and install it and then maintain it. The voice of this thread that GPs should get militant and tell generic path firm A to do write their code their way and install it through their techs or they will take their pathology elsewhere to me is a fringe issue about whether a pathology service is any good or not. I resent being judged by the quality of my download system as the first and foremost parameter of "good". I would have thought more of the brains on the list than that. Most certainly all pathology services are not equal (but they are all pretty good quality thesedays - so "good enough" might be better). Of course, the IT guys perspective may differ depending on how busy they are and they might welcome the chance to manage the download service ;) And finally, as everyone seems to keep ignoring, where we are now represents decisions made by large companines 5 years ago and a progressive rollout to thousands around the country. To my knowledge at no stage ever has the College of GPs or any representative subgroup or even more than about 10 gps actually gotten together and put any kind of proposal, request or specification together to the College of Pathologists or Radiologists addressing what GPs want in downloads. No surprise that left to market forces and a variety of outsourced third party IT consultants and inhouse professionals that each firm developed their own client to do their own thing their own way to suit their own processes and factored in ease of installation and maximum control with minimum share of the resource. Fortunately the vast majority of General and Specialist practice actually likes downloads and wants the service even in its current "evil - liz" non-optimal form. Let me state clearly again, I am all for a universal download client, or at minimum a specification (for Horst) that allows us to write our own universal download application or clearly define how a result can be emailed using existing protocols and standards and married up with an acknowledgement of delivery. And on this list you have met all the Drs that have an interest in developing a universal download client anyway ;))) Basically, unless something concrete comes to pass, Nehta will do it their way with web services, all the groaning and threatening in the world by the people reading this list will give way to harsh reality in about 3 seconds. JD -- ================================================= dr john dooley mbbs frcpa nexuspathology.com aka "ron" _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
