The critical thought to have here is to ask how often they acknowledged
receipt before when you sent hard copy results to the ward. Probably just as
infrequently!
We have abandoned hard copy reporting and all results are sent by computer
to wards. All reports are meant to be electronically signed to acknowledge
their receipt but some consultants refuse [some are even so Luddite that
they refuse to learn a 6-alphanumeric password and insist on having their
secretary with them at all times to massge the keypad (but he will remain
nameless)]. Consequently every 9 months or so when the unacknowledged pile
has grown to unmanagable proportions [too much disc space clogged], the
Medical director does a mass signing to remove the backlog.
The comment about GP in-trays is also apposite. One factor that has deleayed
our introduction of GP computer reporting [which we have been able to do
since 1993], has been our refusal to allow results to be dumped directly
into patient notes, unseen which was demanded by some GPs. We insisted that
at the very least there should be an electronic in-tray so that someone
would have to view results before filing...
TIM
****************************************************************************
*********
Prof. Tim Reynolds,
Clinical Chemistry Department,
Queens Hospital,
Belvedere Rd.,
Burton-on-Trent,
STAFFORDSHIRE,
DE13 0RB,
UK.
tel: 01283 511511 ext. 4035
fax: 01283 593064
email: [log in to unmask]
alternative email for the all too frequent occasions when the NHS email
connection doesn't work:
[log in to unmask]
****************************************************************************
**********
IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual
addressee(s)named above and may contain information that is confidential
privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive persons with low self-esteem,
no sense of humour or irrational religious beliefs. If you are not the
intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email
is not authorized (either explicitly or implicitly) and constitutes an
irritating social faux pas. Unless the word absquatulation has been used in
its correct context somewhere other than in this warning, it does not have
any legal or grammatical use and may be ignored. No animals were harmed in
the transmission of this email, though the kelpie next door is living on
borrowed time, let me tell you. Those of you with an overwhelming fear of
the unknown will be gratified to learn there is no hidden message revealed
by reading this backwards, so just ignore that Alert Notice from Microsoft.
However, by pouring a complete circle of salt around yourself and your
computer you can ensure that no harm befalls you and your pets. If you have
received this eMail in error, please add some nutmeg and egg whites, whisk,
and place in a warm oven for 40 minutes.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dr Robert Hill, Clinical Chemistry @KMC
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 29 August 2002 15:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Good practice guidance for within-hospital Pathology Results
Repo rting and Electronic Requesting (order comms)
I am putting together a Good Practice Guide for our Trust to cover Results
Reporting. Has anyone already done this? We have just completed roll-out of
Results Reporting to all acute ward areas but currently do not have Order
Comms.
One current issue with our system is that medical staff are very reluctant
to acknowledge receipt of results. This is particularly important for alarms
and alerts which may remain displayed long after appropriate clinical action
has been taken. (Our alarms and alerts relate to test results falling
outside of pre-defined critical limits.)However, it should also apply to
other results indicating that someone with the ability to act on results has
actually seen them. It could also be the case that less than 10% of our
reports are ever read by anyone - but let's not go there....
I am aware of the very useful Good practice guidance in Pathology EDI for GP
messaging www.nhsia.nhs.uk/pathology/pages/documents/gpgg_v1.004.doc
(requires Adobe Acrobat). Some of this, such as the need for a unique
patient identifier is equally applicable to the Hospital situation. However,
delivery to a GP 'in-tray' is not equivalent to delivery to a ward based
reporting system.
Any comments welcome
Robert
------ACB discussion List Information--------
This is an open discussion list for the academic and clinical
community working in clinical biochemistry.
Please note, archived messages are public and can be viewed
via the internet. Views expressed are those of the individual and
they are responsible for all message content.
ACB Web Site
http://www.acb.org.uk
List Archives
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN.html
List Instructions (How to leave etc.)
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/
------ACB discussion List Information--------
This is an open discussion list for the academic and clinical
community working in clinical biochemistry.
Please note, archived messages are public and can be viewed
via the internet. Views expressed are those of the individual and
they are responsible for all message content.
ACB Web Site
http://www.acb.org.uk
List Archives
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN.html
List Instructions (How to leave etc.)
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/
|