Which means that another costing needs to be added: the cost of working through GP phone menu systems and listening to tinny music before GP can be found - that takes up a ridiculous amount of tinme for some practices.
*************************************************************************************
Prof. Tim Reynolds,
Queen's Hospital,
Belvedere Rd,
Burton-on-Trent,
Staffordshire,
DE13 0RB
work tel: 01283 511511 ext. 4035
work fax: 01283 593064
work email: [log in to unmask]
home email: [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 Macroshaft. 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: IT working group of the Association of Clinical Biochemists [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jonathan Kay
Sent: 16 May 2006 14:27
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Costs of Report Comments - invitation to share info
I do nearly all of mine by 'phone with clinicians: I can't understand
the clinical issues otherwise.
This should still allow us to cost this: perhaps in hours/week
For the same reasons that I prefer to do it this way I find the the
UK NEQAS scheme is of very limited value as it assumes a workflow
that I don't use.
Brian Shine and I often find that we "'phone and discuss" more and
"just 'phone results" less than our SpRegs.
Jonathan
On 16 May 2006, at 14:15, Reynolds Tim wrote:
> Personally, I do most of my comenting on the phone and not on paper
> - I get lots of GP phone calls in which we discuss the patient and
> I don't have to rely on 2 illegible words (if that) of clinical
> detail. It makes costing thins difficult / impossible.
>
> TIM
>
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> ***************
> Prof. Tim Reynolds,
> Queen's Hospital,
> Belvedere Rd,
> Burton-on-Trent,
> Staffordshire,
> DE13 0RB
>
> work tel: 01283 511511 ext. 4035
> work fax: 01283 593064
> work email: [log in to unmask]
> home email: [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 Macroshaft. 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: IT working group of the Association of Clinical Biochemists
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Bailey
> Sent: 16 May 2006 13:10
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Costs of Report Comments - invitation to share info
>
>
> There are a number of difficulties here and some excellent comments.
>
> costing model proposed assumes "set based" rather than test or
> specimen based
>
> also we already use auto commenting and auto authorisation
> processes, should these be counted or not?
>
>
> our laboratory computer is APEX which is test based, so teasing out
> to a set based commenting would not be very productive.
>
> Report authorisation as already noted here is not just about
> commenting
>
> and one of our (very good service) reference centres does sometimes
> send back reports with "all results normal" - unclear if automated
> or not -and at other times very abnormal results with no comment.
>
>
> From a poster I submitted Bailey IR. Rule-based further
> requesting, interpretation, addition of comments and authorisation
> by computer. Annals of Clinical Biochemistry 1998 (suppl): 92.
> which was predominantly about thyroid auto commenting, which freed
> up time to consider the less obvious thyroid results, which
> appeared to go up in quantity and time of implementation (and there
> will be a loss of this automation process with CfH requesting as
> clinical details will not be coded, an important aspect when auto
> commenting, see Mike's point about removing inappropriate comments,
> nor is there any proposal to automatically include known chronic
> disease states of diabetes and renal failure for example in
> requests note this applies to London, I do not know elsewhere) so
> when considering further automation of commenting should this be at
> clinical end where all (?) relevant information should be available?
>
> How do we count interpretations we have been asked to add to work
> performed in the private sector?
>
> We need to be able to quantify the quality and added value aspects
> of this process, ? best done by "customers" not us!
>
> Ian
>
> Dr Ian R Bailey
> Consultant Chemical Pathologist, Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust,UK
> email: [log in to unmask]
> Tel: 01689 864281
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: IT working group of the Association of Clinical Biochemists
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Smellie Stuart (RXP)
> Consultant Chemical Pathologist
> Sent: 10 May 2006 09:35
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Costs of Report Comments - invitation to share info
>
> We discussed this at ACP chem path committee and there were
> different views. One thing I would point out as a caution is that
> of equating the added cost of a consultant to the clinical comments
> reflects only a small part of the job, and risking the rest being
> forgotten, which would make commenting look expensive. The
> 'package' of added value the consultant gives is a mix of
> commenting/protocol advice/troubleshooting odd results etc. of
> which actual comment adding is only a part.
> We should be careful that by peeling off only one part of that
> package, the other bits which are less easily 'unitised' could be
> perceived as being of no added value and stripped out. In DGHs many
> feel that systematic commenting often has limited added value -
> time is spent producing logic rules so we can use a lot of
> computer generated protocols for more standard stuff - a bit like
> PBR, if comments were itemised, we could see a spurious industry of
> artificial wealth creation! It may be that a list of the activities
> which consultants do to contribute to the extra 10p cost or
> whatever per test could be produced in parallel.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: IT working group of the Association of Clinical Biochemists
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of JA Muir Gray
> Sent: 10 May 2006 07:29
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Costs of Report Comments - invitation to share info
>
> Agree+++++++
>
> In times of danger ; stick to your principles and be bold
>
>
> On 9/5/06 17:20, "Rick Jones" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Yes but if we don't cost it how do you justify having expensive
>> medics
>> at
> all.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>>
>> Dr Rick Jones
>> Clinical Biochemistry & Immunology
>> Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust
>> Leeds General Infirmary
>> Great George St
>> Leeds LS1 3EX
>> [log in to unmask]
>> [log in to unmask]
>> Trust: 0113 392 2340
>> Univ: 0113 343 8033
>> Fax: 0113 392 5174
>> LS1 3EX
>>
>> http://www.ychi.leeds.ac.uk
>> http://www.thehungersite.com
>>
>>
>>>>> [log in to unmask] 09/05/2006 09:00 >>>
>> Costing of comments is very dangerous. If for example you calculate
>> that each comment costs £10 then the PCT might decide that they don't
>> want to pay for that part of the service and will ask to strip that
>> from what they pay the lab. What happens then - redundancies?
>>
>>
>>
>> *********************************************************************
>> *
>> ********
>> *******
>> Prof. Tim Reynolds,
>> Queen's Hospital,
>> Belvedere Rd,
>> Burton-on-Trent,
>> Staffordshire,
>> DE13 0RB
>>
>> work tel: 01283 511511 ext. 4035
>> work fax: 01283 593064
>> work email: [log in to unmask]
>> home email: [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 Macroshaft. 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: IT working group of the Association of Clinical Biochemists
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rick Jones
>> Sent: 08 May 2006 16:22
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Costs of Report Comments - invitation to share info
>>
>>
>> Dear ACB-IT,
>> I'm interested in working out what it costs labs to manually put
>> clinical comments on reports principally to see what the relative
>> economic value of a more automated approach might be.
>>
>> I've developed an excel model to try to work this out in relation to
>> staff time and report volumes.
>>
>> If anyone were interested in using this to capture & share data about
>> their own service or indeed in refining the model I'd be pleased
>> to hear
> from you.
>>
>> If we were to get a number of estimates I'd be happy to put them
>> together and share the info after suitable anonymisation.
>>
>> With best wishes
>>
>>
>>
>> Dr Rick Jones
>> Clinical Biochemistry & Immunology
>> Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust
>> Leeds General Infirmary
>> Great George St
>> Leeds LS1 3EX
>> [log in to unmask]
>> [log in to unmask]
>> Trust: 0113 392 2340
>> Univ: 0113 343 8033
>> Fax: 0113 392 5174
>> LS1 3EX
>>
>> http://www.ychi.leeds.ac.uk
>> http://www.thehungersite.com
|