Is accreditation of a GP Computer system important? Should one choose only a system which meets the latest requiremeents for accreditation (RFA 4) or follow one's own judgement or some alternative means of testing its usefulness?

The promise the NHS made to GPs was that the RFA would ensure they got a system which worked, and that all the money available for GP computing would be given to GPs with RFA compliant systems - or rather systems which had passed the tests run by the Family Health Service Computer unit.

The FHSCU is of course the source of the FHSA/HA software. They passed Registration and Item of Service Links as being good.

For those who need it, before leaping to a conclusion, there is further dicussion below.

Were these promises kept?

They were made by agents of the previous Government, and that is as close an answer as you would be likely to have got from them, but in a word, NO.

Is there enough money involved to cause GPs to abandon their own judgement and choose a system of which the NHS IMG has expressed approval? How much would that be? Anyway, the amounts involved are smaller by an order of magnitude than they should be, and since funding was not withheld from systems not meeting RFA, nobody got it anyway. Ripped off again brethren, or if you like looking at bright sides, speedy and effective lobbying on our behalf by our political arm and by the computer suppliers produced a satisfactory postponement of the rules.

SO, who needs RFA?

Does Dr Pritt Buttar, author of his own GP computer system need RFA - no. He knows what needs to go in it, and it would be amazing if anyone else with the wit to log onto GP-UK didn't know what fields are needed at a minimum.

Frighten Them With Lawyers.

If your system is RFA compliant, you need not worry about your computerised notes being accepted in a Service Committee Meeting, or a court as reliable?
True False

Regulate and Charge