On Monday 29 May 2006 07:38, john dooley wrote: > 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).
And how should we judge? The only report that gives me a rough idea is a histology report - and even then I need to see a great many reports to start getting an idea whether the pathologist is doing a better job than his peers (and even then I might be completely wrong). Much easier to judge a radiologist - but (at least for me) only when talking X-Rays - the moment we look at MRI scans or CT scans, my rudimentary knowledge will not be enough to tell even the worst form the best The only thing I can judge is the timeliness of the report, and ease of interpretation - and the convenience of filing, retrieving and speed-reading the report. Timelinesswill always be superior with downloaded ones, filing will be faster with downloaded ones, and retrieving will be faster. If the results come atomic and I can display them the way it suits me, I can read them fastest - especially if the computer can assist me, e.g. by displaying graphs - so yes, results download is one of the prime criteria of choice of pathology provider to me. You are aware that I stated that I won't allow any path company to install software on my computer - which means that I don't use providers who don't use openly published standard protocols that allow me to write my own. Fortunately, my preferred provider has no problems with this, and I cannot help but wonder how stupid their competition is by loosing so much business simply by refusing to use standards. Horst _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
