Why NHS /GP patient records

They'd better find a way of sorting that out before we move surgeries - we don't use disposible or ISP based addresses, we have our own domain specifically so we can keep the same addresses whenever anything changes and have it under our control! We don't want to have to remember which email address applies to each of our hundreds of logins and remember to update them all when things change.

Pathetic.

SteveW

Reply to
Steve Walker
Loading thread data ...

Oh me to

it was The scanning into the new system that I was really answering

I don't have a robust enough storage system for my mails

I definitely prefer paper records for medical issues. I keep all of them, including cancellations

tim

Reply to
tim...

I pinged them to see if I could do this

and there is a way, but it's not at all obvious

that data is in the domain of the doctor's database.

Your new doctor will have to enter all the links in again.

tim

Reply to
tim...

all of the patient facing software that I have so far had the misfortune to use is written at the level of hobby software

It's clear that it hasn't been written by software professionals but by health professionals who have no idea about "best practice" for interface design.

I tried to find out from my doctor how I could input (FOC) my *professional* advice into the process (the surgery does have a patient committee that discuses such things), but got nowhere.

But TBH, the failures at the front end pale into insignificance when compared with the issue that I raised of surgeries not releasing enough appointment slots into the online booking system

If HMG/DHSC want this process to go online for *everyone*, as is their stated aim, that is only possible of I am guaranteed to get my preferred choice of appointment doctor/day/time using this system, which currently I can't (In spades)

tim

Reply to
tim...

My surgery allows you to email a request for a repeat prescription. But you then have to pick it up a couple of days later. The chemist you last used for that prescription may also offer the same service.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Illiteracy in surgeries doesn't help. Eg a fortnight ago I used EMIS Patient Access to send a message to the surgery asking if I needed a blood test as suggested at annual eye test. After a week without a reply I called in to the surgery. Eventually sat down with the practice manager. It turned out they didn't know that functionality had been enabled. So my message (and a very few others) were say in the "inbox" which no one ever read.

And this is an inner London practice with 11k on its list.

Reply to
Robin

The chemist does, but only for items that are on the repeat list. Which in the case of hayfever medication only needed for 3 months of the year, the surgery apparently can't put on that list, because they can only cope with something being used throughout the year - hence having to go in and fill out a form.

SteveW

Reply to
Steve Walker

They all do it like that because its much harder to correct the ill. In fact impossible to correct some ills like most manufacturing jobs having left the country due to what is completely outside the control of any government.

Different matter entirely to government of a country.

Reply to
2987pl

Tedious but entrely sensible; something might have changed in the preceding year that makes the prescription inappropriate. Defiinitely a case for a GP to review, and perhaps discuss your son's recent history on the phone. I can't help commending the receptionist's wise adherence to protocol.

Reply to
Roger Hayter

You might think so; the last software project I was on the project committee of (with no actual influence) was run by a relatively well paid "project manager" in the small Trust's IT department, The overall architecture was decided by her sales representative at Microsoft (as the only thing she actually knew about computers was that software had to be compatible with Microsoft). After paying half her salary for 18 months there was little extra money in the project budget for programming so the application was actually written by a recent computer science graduate hired short-term on a work experience basis or similar. This may provide some insight into the process, and the pervasive influence of professional managers in the NHS.

Reply to
Roger Hayter

They could do that when the prescription request was put into the system. There is no need whatsoever for someone to make the journey to the surgery to fill in a form that won't even be looked at until the next day.

If at any point the GP feels that a review is required, they can flag it up - not have the receptionist try to book up scarce appointments for each request, with weeks wait, only for the GP to decide that no review is required when you attend the appointment.

SteveW

Reply to
Steve Walker

100% agree that it is absurd you have to go there just to make a request! But the danger of allowing the request to go into the repeat prescription system is that the GP tasked with doing hundreds of them may miss the cues to examine this one in the necessary detail. Hence all the restirictive protocols for allowing repeat prescriptions. Do they not do phone consultations? The next best thing might be to write a letter to the GP (assuming they can't accept email). But for your own safety (and the GP's continuing registration) something like this has to be consciously reviewed, and probably a verbal check made that they are not missing any relevant info. I am sure you are right that there isn't any, but the GP has got to review this for himself (or herself) and would still want to do so if you were a paediatrician yourself.
Reply to
Roger Hayter

If it was a medication that he had all year round, it would be on repeat and any review would be triggered from the surgery end - what's the difference?

SteveW

Reply to
Steve Walker

The difference is that if it was on the regular medication list any new info affecting the drug (which could even be a new national notification of an interaction) would be flagged up as applying to this patient. As an effectively new prescription it needs the prescriber to review *any* possible problems. I don't want to prolong this - I am just saying there may be a good reason for apparently bureaucratic restrictions.

Reply to
Roger Hayter

The only difference is that it would be a repeat with a couple of months supply on a 12 monthly interval instead of a monthly one or bi-monthly one. Just enter it into the system in that way and it can be treated in exactly the same way. There is no need for it to be a "new" prescription each year and it would be flagged for review or for interactions in exactly the same way as one issued monthly.

If he was on it throughout the year, they would have to decide when to review and to check for interactions when any other medications were presecribed, so why not do exactly the same, just with it repeating once a year instead?

Most likely it is crappy software that won't let them enter it in that way, thus forcing more unnecessary bureaucracy, wasted time and cost and taking up scarece and valuable appointment slots.

SteveW

Reply to
Steve Walker

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.