So we need to move this on. We have come back to the points lots of us
have been making for some time:
1. The GP systems should forever be the boss system and remain forever
in the practices.
2. GPs would continue to be responsible for the quality of this boss
record.
3. Data transferred to other clinical systems on a need to know basis -
problem referred, supporting info , allergies other diseases and
medication and therapies at referral, admission to hospital, test
orders, therapy orders etc mimicking the current analogue communication
systems.
4. All data created during admission, referral and tests etc MUST BE fed
back to GP boss patient record direct to each problem heading (as in the
inward side of Path X-ray Links)
5. Read 2 coding used as common coding system until (if ever) SNOMED CT
tried tested and found fit for purpose.
6. Get all GP systems up to scratch on problem orientation and create
common transferable Read 2 coded record with standard flags for PO,
episodes, sympt, signs, test, report, meds, etc as in system 5!!!
7. Develop code clustering, identify duplicates and missing concepts and
terms in Read 2 and develop more keywords and synonymous terms to make
even more useable.
8. Use graphical interfaces (pen n pad, visual read etc) for data entry
- particularly needed for secondary care.
The work plan to achieve this:
1. Put GP type clinical system into all secondary care NOW - use Read 2.
2. Populate Secondary care systems data from GP system from referrals or
at attendance A&E or admission.
3. Build non-NHS (DIN could do this) anonymised data collection system
giving PCT accounts on the site to interrogate and collect data for
management and commissioning (referrals, nurse activity, hospital
activity and so on.
I have am taking over the management of DIN from Paul Steventon and am
prepared to devote some time and effort to building a cheap solution to
put in place of the current unworkable scheme.
Love Rog
-----Original Message-----
From: GP-UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mary Hawking
Sent: 01 July 2005 11:02
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Stigmatising records
In message <[log in to unmask]>, Julian
Bradley <[log in to unmask]> writes
>At 08:28 30/06/2005, you wrote:
>>http://society.guardian.co.uk/internet/story/0,8150,1517758,00.html
>>
>>ends up by saying:
>>
>>'Simon Eccles, a consultant working for the government's IT programme,
=
>>said:
>>"No information that patients do not wish to have shared will be
shared. =
>>The
>>electronic record would not include data about mental health, sexually
>>transmitted diseases or other information that might be regarded as
>>stigmatising.'
>
>If this were true, the spine is virtually dead.
>
>We'd have reached the point where patients would choose themselves to
>forward certain information to the spine. There could be NO automatic
>upload, and to be meaningful there would be no central servers in
>general primary care use. We'd keep to GP practice held info.
>
>There is no way that the government could afford to pay health
>professionals, either GPs or nurses, to sieve this data out of medical
>records, and check with each patient what they consider stigmatizing.
>
>So.... is it true or not?
>
>Julian
If it *is* true, would the resulting record be fit for the purpose of
managing patients?
MaryH
--
Mary Hawking
______________________________________________
This email has been scanned by Netintelligence
http://www.netintelligence.com/email
|