At 08:16 30/09/2004, you wrote:
>Laurie,
>Could you ask the key question: what is (and what s the function) of the
>CRS?
>Until we know what it is, how could any reasonable person have a
>rational opinion on the opportunities and threats it might represent?
>
>If the CRS is (as Aidan Halligan said at the Conference of LMCs) an
>incremental record from the date of the organisation , how useful would
>this be for management of individual patients?
>
>If the CRS is a total cradle-to-grave record , incorporating the
>existing records, what would the effect on this pooled record be of
>incomplete records, and records generated at the same time in different
>places?
>If the CRS is unreliable, how confident should anyone be in depending on
>it for patient treatment?
>
>Now, if the CRS is a summary (and this could be agreed with the
>individual patient) , that would be really useful!
>
>I know I'm not in the IDX fiefdom, but CRS is supposed to be national
>(meaning, in this case, English) and presumably iSoft will have to
>conform to the same CRS.
>
>MaryH
Mary,
So well said. A push type CRS, from a personal comprehensive record help
in GP surgeries, to a central spine storing agreed salient facts with
patient consent would be a wholly different animal, and one many of us
would be very happy to sign up to.
It is ethically less questionable, technically easier to achieve, and
***easier to use safely for patient care*** which seems to be being ignored
at present.
Such a record would be a truly "patient" record, not including opinions,
all kinds of niff-naff and trivia, or items about doctors and nurses.
The government wouldn't have to do any U turns, just focus on what would be
both useful and achievable. Even the audit commission should be happy.
Would they really lose anything worth having by this rather minor
re-adjustment?
(Avoiding for a moment the story developed on TV recently that medical
records could be used as part of a huge profiling and predictive justice
system)
Julian
|