Practice Management Systems Review
“Late last year Patients First published the summary report for the PMS review. They have received feedback from vendors requesting additional input to the process and the opportunity to provide additional context. On reflection and in discussion with NHITB, Patients First has agreed to treat the summary report that is currently in limited circulation as a draft version 1 report with an finalised version due for general release on 10 February (to coincide with the annual GP Quality Symposium).
The final report will contain some further clarification as to the process and we will release both the detailed and summary reports together on that date.”
Findings
It should be pointed out that the review is not, at this stage, comprehensive. It does not look at many areas of functionality; some of the additional functions that some PMS systems offer and that others don’t; or commercial aspects such as total cost of ownership or support. The review was only concerned with current systems and current versions and no account has been taken of future enhancements or planned replacement systems.
With these caveats, the review identifies significant variations in the results of the assessments of each system. These variations are illustrated in the star rating matrix below.
|
Star Ratings
|
|
There are two ratings for four of the product/focus areas. The first line of stars relates to the views of the functional panel, the second line reflects the ratings of the technical panel.
|
|
¶¶¶¶
|
Fully meets the required level of function, design and/or technical approach
|
|
¶¶¶
|
Mostly meets the required level of function, design and/or technical approach, but some improvements required in specified areas
|
|
¶¶
|
Falls short of required level of function, design and/or technical approach in a number of areas, considerable work required in specified areas to meet standard
|
|
¶
|
Substantially fails to meet required level of function, design and/or technical approach.
|
|
|
Structured data
|
Published API
|
Interoperability
|
Security
|
Usability
(of alerts)
|
|
Houston
|
¶¶¶
|
|
¶¶
|
¶¶
|
¶¶¶¶
|
|
¶¶
|
¶
|
¶¶
|
¶¶
|
¶¶¶¶
|
|
Intrahealth/Profile
|
¶¶¶¶
|
|
¶¶¶
|
¶¶¶¶
|
¶¶¶
|
|
¶¶¶¶
|
¶¶¶
|
¶¶¶
|
¶¶¶¶
|
¶¶¶
|
|
Medtech 32 *
|
¶¶
|
|
¶¶
|
¶
|
¶
|
|
¶¶
|
¶¶
|
¶¶
|
¶
|
¶
|
|
MyPractice
|
¶¶¶¶
|
|
¶¶¶
|
¶¶¶
|
¶¶¶¶
|
|
¶¶¶¶
|
¶¶¶¶
|
¶¶¶¶
|
¶¶¶¶
|
¶¶¶¶
|
* As Medtech declined the opportunity to respond to the RFI, the report relating to Medtech is based upon knowledge of Medtech PMS obtained through experience of its use and through inspection of its user interface. In compiling this report, the panel did not have access to technical descriptions of the Medtech system, architecture, internal workings or its interfaces.
Throughout the report, statements expressed represent the conclusions reached by observation of the Medtech user interface, limited information provided in documentation (e.g. help files) and the company website, and by deduction. It is therefore possible some statements may be factually incorrect.
A copy of this report was provided to Medtech and the company was given an opportunity to respond. Feedback from Medtech has been factored into the report and corresponding star rating.
This matrix provides a high level view of the assessment panel. It is recommended that any person or organisation interested in understanding how ratings were determined, should review the full report.
Although this review is intended to provide guidance to those selecting PMS systems and to provide suppliers with guidance in terms of their future development strategies and areas for quality improvement, it is stressed that many other dimensions relating to these are currently outside the scope of this report and should be taken into account.
It should be noted that this is a point-in-time review. Although the Patients First Programme will attempt to maintain the currency of these assessments, it cannot guarantee its accuracy in the future.
GP2GP
Functionality now available to all MyPractice Sites. Notes can be moved seamlessly between all MyPractice sites and some trial sites from MedTech and Houston . Intrahealth sites will be available some. You will need to ensure your Healthlink version is upto date. Instructions are available in the tutorial section
Results of RNZCGP 2009 Conference Questionaire (Part 3)
Designed by Dr Ashwin Patel
Results of RNZCGP 2009 Conference Questionaire (Part 2)
Designed by Dr Ashwin Patel
Results of RNZCGP 2009 Conference Questionaire (Part 1)
Designed by Dr Ashwin Patel
Congratulations - Procare Quality Award Winners
-
Mangere Health Center
Practice of the Year
Mangere Health Centre won two awards including Practice of the Year for "exceptional dedication to medical practice" during the ninth annual ProCare Quality Awards on Saturday night.
"Mangere Health Centre is confronted with an extremely challenging environment, with little access to private health services and limited financial resources," said Dr John Elliott, one of the award judges and chair of the ProCare Clinical Governance Committee.
"Mangere Health Centre has shown exceptional dedication to medical practice and superb general practitioner service provision for a large population of high-needs patients."
-
Linda Whickman
Practice Manager of the year
-
Seddon St Medical Centre
These awards were determined from specific performance data recorded by ProCare
- Cultural Responsiveness
- CVD Screening and Management
- Continuous Planned Intervention
Six NZ GPs honoured by their peers
Sunday, 20 July 2008, 3:24 pm
Media release from the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners.
Six New Zealand GPs have been honoured by their peers for or exemplary and exceptional service to general practice.
The award of Distinguished Fellowship was conferred on Dr Jacqueline Allan (Papakura), Dr Ashwin Patel (Parnell), Dr Peter Jansen, and Dr Peter Woolford (West Auckland), Dr Logan McLennan (Porirua) and Dr Tony Townsend (Whangamata).at the College Conference that concluded in Queenstown on Saturday.