Dr. P,
Thanks for that very long and detailed explaination. It is much apperciated. So if I understand you correctly, then our demographic info does not x-fere over from AC to the Lab interface for the ordering of labs on "new" patients. But it also seems that once a patient is in their system it no long needs to be entred every time, so it is a one time entry at least. Is there a way that allows you to know who has been entered already and who is new to the system or interface so you can easily figure that out and not double your work or not make more duplicate patients? If a patient has been a patient of theirs (LabCorp or Quest) already but not thru the interface do we need to enter their stuff the first time or are we sort of on-line with their server and can we find our already shared mutual patients? If not has this sort of thing lead to any confusion in the system? Is that what the bridge thing that they are building for you is all about?
So what format are the labs in once we get them? Are they on a "windows, AC like" screen with data fields filled in? In one way this might be nice as it allows the program to track and crunch numbers and data if properly set up that way to do such. But, it now has our labs in an AC only useable format which in the long run concerns me after certain other issues mentioned earlier this year. As I'm sure this would concern certain other folks on this board who are equally concerned about data and chart control. What format are the labs in, in that back up folder?
I guess I would like to know whether or not the lab will always maintain a copy of the data at their place and on their systems, so if we ever needed to import our data in a new format, that such a thing would be easily possible. But would they have the results linked by providers so as to be able to provide us with a file or two with our complete set of patients and their results. I think I am reaching here unfortunately.
Do they really have to re-invent the wheel everytime one of us comes on line? I would have thought that those at the helm of this on both sides would have put more thought and worked out the bugs. Also as noted by others that both sides would have made the process clearer and guide us thru it better so as to avoid issues and make things smoother for us and them. It's sort of like each and every user has to poke and prod his own way thru this whole set up thing. Very strange. If one is going to bother to design and impliment such a nice thing, then why not also design a proper step by step set of proceedures that all sides can easily follow? But such logical questions have gotten me in trouble in the past, so what do I know.
Well thanks again for all your assistance and insight into how this all sort of works and plays out. Keep us in the loop as things develop....
Paul
