--- Adrian Fogarty <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> Doesn't quite make sense either, Fred. You're
> suggesting that 98% is OK even
> if the last 2% are simple breaches, but if you
> suddenly get 1% genuine
> exceptions on top of that - dropping you down to 97%
> overall - then that's
> no longer OK. I think you're correct in that you
> will have to report
> whenever you drop below 98% but I suspect that, if
> by removing the genuine
> exceptions you then get back up to 98% then that
> will be acceptable, as in
> the "Bacon" approach: "It has therefore been agreed
> that, after allowing for
> all exceptional circumstances, recorded performance
> should stay above 98%
> from 1 January 2005." Anyway, if it's not formally
> clarified then I expect
> there will be much room for local interpretation!
>
Well you may be right, but I have a sneaking suspicion
that it may not prove so! You are not supposed to have
any simple breaches as far as I can tell from the tone
of the document. However what they seem to be saying
is that if you stay above 98% they don't care what
happened to the patients. Effectively turning a blind
eye to any simple breaches. However if you drop below
that I'm not sure you will be allowed to get away with
simple breaches even if exceptions take you over 98%,
because you are not supposed to have any simple
breaches in the first place!
Fred.
|