Mary

As head of primary care for iSOFT I can confirm John's email, we have
had no preferential treatment with regards to QoF, the only reason we
have gained acceptance 1st is due to the incredible work from Phil Brown
of Informatica, who we have contracted to provide our QoF solution.

I hope that clarifies your concerns and yes this is in pilot at the
moment and will be on full release in the next few days.


Regards


Mark Gibbs
Head of Primary Care
iSOFT
Banbury Office
Daventry Road
Banbury
Oxfordshire OX16 3JT
England
Contact:
Tel: +44 (0) 1295 274310
Fax: +44 (0) 870 050 8911
Mobile: +44 (0) 7867 832802
Email: [log in to unmask]
Web: www.isoftplc.com




THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL and intended solely for the use of the
individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the addressee, any
disclosure, reproduction, copying, distribution, or other dissemination
or use of this communication is strictly prohibited.
-----Original Message-----
From: GP-UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mary Hawking
Sent: 08 January 2007 20:02
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: QOF - problems due to changing rules late in the year

In message <[log in to unmask]>, Trefor
Roscoe <[log in to unmask]> writes

>DO NOT USE OTHER CALCULATORS!!!
>
>If the lab wont give you eGFRs then exception report the whole
>population that have had a U&E in the last 12 months and claim the
points.

Can't do that - unless I classify *everyone* who had a serum creatinine
as having CKD in the first place!

As it is - using the EMIS potential CKD search - I have about the
expected 3-4% prevalence. As the majority of CKD3 patients are elderly,
I am not sure how clinically useful this is. One of my partners has just
exception reported a patient who is 101, with dementia and a serum
creatinine well within the normal values for the local lab...

>The PCT
>should have sorted this out

Agree: but there does not appear to have been any requirement for the
labs to provide the information - and they won't release it until the
funding stream for nephrology has been sorted.
As a member of a PBC Consortium, I am not in favour of providing an open
ended increased funding stream to secondary care - especially when I
have not seen the evidence that elderly - and very elderly -patients
actually benefit.

>and if you cannot say if a pateint has kidney disease or not then that
>is their fault. Doing this may of course increase the supposed
>prevelance, but the whole thing is a nonsense anyway.
>
>And let your GPC rep know you are unhappy.

I have let my LMC know - should I tell the GPC representative as well?

MaryH

--
Mary Hawking