In article <000701c4945b$ebee1500$df65453e@advent>, kupton
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>David said "I do not understand your allegations re Vision. I have just had
>the QMAS
>searches installed on my system and have not had to adjust any of the
>codes we currently use. My results compare well (better) with other
>local practices
>Did you use the 'Approved Codes' from the specification?"
Yes: but I rarely remember specific Read codes, we do have a large
number of keywords and try to use the read description accurately -
removal of some key words was an essential part of preparation.

>It was not our practice who are Torex aligned, it was others around and
>about who have Vision, their version of Qmas seemed not to be working as
>yours, there may be reasons for this which I am not aware of, however I hope
>that others will run Qmas early in order to ensure they will get points if
>they are not coding correctly.
Vision practices benefited from a system search that showed contract
success on a 'current position' basis. QMAS is strictly contract year
and its results are currently lower numerically than those calculated
over the past 15 months. Having had the system searches we were alerted
early on to coding problems and were able to make sensible adjustments.
Most vision practices cannot yet upload data to QMAS if they have a good
QoF position on the current system searches they will retain it on the
uploaded data but the headline numbers will currently be smaller (as
they are for everyone - with six months to go before QoF day)

>It is not easy to remember codes, most of us make our entries from pick
>lists of phrases, unfortunately these do not always equate to the codes
>which are required though the wording may be identical.
>I was making my cancer entries incorrectly for points. I made the mistake of
>entering the diagnosis of unusual cancers by finding their names,
>unfortunately I had not appreciated that I needed to make an entry of organ
>and "cancer" otherwise it would not be found as a cancer.
Especially as Consultants tend to give histology diagnoses in their
letters often the [M] or morphology ones that are excluded from the
contract - we did make some adjustments for this.

>If you actually remember all those codes, how do you find time to see
>patients and why should we have to remember a load of numbers, I suppose
>this is what you get when you "decrease beaurocracy" as with most political
>scams. Less means MORE
>Regards Karen
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "David J Brown" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 11:05 PM
>Subject: Re: Appraisal & IT
>
>
>> In article <004e01c492c2$9b898c10$5563453e@advent>, kupton
>> <[log in to unmask]> writes
>>>Paul,
>>>You will no doubt be snapped up by a sensible practice and your old
>>>partners
>>>will miss you greatly. We have now employed someone(with medical
>>>connections) in order to get our read coding right, as we found that the
>>>approved search engine to generate our points, missed a large number of
>>>perfectly correct read codes which showed we had done work to us but not
>>>to
>>>this search.
>> Sounds as if you have mal-ware rather than a GP system
>>
>>>Those using Vision are having a worse time as they have been issued with
>>>new
>>>read codes in the last month and these are the ones to be picked up by the
>>>searches, so all the work done from April until now is out the window and
>>>has to be redone. Worse of all they only found this out fortuitously, no
>>>one
>>>including Vamp thought to let them know , let alone consult them on the
>>>matter. Fortunately this search does not work on Torex so we have a little
>>>extra time to change to the new codes as we can use the old ones to prove
>>>what we have done.
>> I do not understand your allegations re Vision. I have just had the QMAS
>> searches installed on my system and have not had to adjust any of the
>> codes we currently use. My results compare well (better) with other
>> local practices
>> Did you use the 'Approved Codes' from the specification?
>>
>>
>>>Hopefully we will not have to employ a bevy of administrators to change
>>>our
>>>coding retrospectively to the correct codes (available only
>>>retrospectively).
>> We are not funded for this kind of input & have not needed it either! We
>> have had to adjust a few (small number) codes but no massive or large
>> scale adjustments!
>>
>>>One might wonder if this is a ploy to avoid paying for the extra work we
>>>have done as the government may not have as much money as expected to pay
>>>for their changes.
>> I assume that you omitted <cynical mode=on> before your remarks!
>>
>>>Feels a bit like deja vu when we all did our health promotion clinics for
>>>extra money in 1990's and then spent several years paying back the money
>>>Maggie did not expect us to earn. Despite the fact that we had done the
>>>work!
>> Maggie had a friend called Kenneth who felt wallets - but that was
>> better than Gordon who loots them - stealthily.
>>
>>>Be careful out there.
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Mary Hawking" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 8:18 PM
>>>Subject: Re: Appraisal & IT
>>>
>>>
>>>> In message <[log in to unmask]>, Paul
>>>> Bromley <[log in to unmask]> writes
>>>>
>>>>>I've just survived my 2nd appraisal! One thing that I've realized about
>>>>>this
>>>>>process is how little is thought of the GPs who spend substantial time
>>>>>on
>>>>>the IT/Read Coding etc side within the practice. I was told by my
>>>>>appraiser
>>>>>that the many hours that I had spent in these areas were not valid in
>>>>>any
>>>>>way for my appraisal. I was carrying out 'tasks' and these are viewed as
>>>>>part of General Practice.
>>>>
>>>> Paul, I sympathise with the problems in your practice - but doesn't your
>>>> Appraiser need re-educating?
>>>> 1. Most (possibly all) of your work on developing means of ensuring
>>>> accurate entry of high quality data: surely this falls within the
>>>> Teaching and training bits of Good Practice?
>>>> 2. Part of any Practice Development Plan (and your personal PDP is
>>>> supposed to relate to this) must be to enter the data required for
>>>> maximum profits.. Does this need rephrasing?
>>>> Anyway, there is a need to improve data standards in most practices
>>>> (including mine) both for direct patient care and in order to provide
>>>> good standard data to the NCR and big brother.
>>>> WHY did your Appraiser think that this was irrelevant?
>>>> 3. My Appraiser is IT literate - and the few things I do are accepted as
>>>> part of my professional activities and ongoing development.
>>>> Is there a classification - anywhere - of what is acceptable for brownie
>>>> points in appraisal?
>>>> 4. How far is an appraiser allowed to influence your PDP for the next
>>>> year?
>>>> *You* are supposed to identify your own learning needs: is an Appraiser
>>>> allowed to tell you you've got it wrong?
>>>>
>>>> Just asking...
>>>>
>>>> Mary Hawking
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mary Hawking
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>>> Doctors.net.uk e-mail protects you from viruses and unsolicited messages
>>>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> David J Brown
>> Extraware for Vision Users:
>> Version 2 now available with
>> New Contract Recall Letters
>> http://www.extraware.co.uk
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> Doctors.net.uk e-mail protects you from viruses and unsolicited messages
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>

--
David J Brown
Extraware for Vision Users:
Version 2 now available with
New Contract Recall Letters
http://www.extraware.co.uk