In message <[log in to unmask]>, Alison Young
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>Mary
>
>As one person closely involved in the production of the various tools to
>manage the QMAS reporting let me help here.
>
>isoft have indeed never before been first to achieve conformance for their
>QMAS product but Informatica who were awarded the contract to supply their
>reporting software this year volunteered to pilot the conformance test pack
>with CfH this time which is why they have achieved conformance first. The
>conformance pack was released to all suppliers at the same time and
>conformance "proper" started from 5th January and each supplier submits
>their results to the test team at Exeter in their own time(this particular
>conformance does not required a visist frpom the team just transmission of
>messages!).
>
>iSoft may have passed conformance BUT the changes to the QMAS website to
>accept the new messages is not available for testing until 22nd January so
>the iSoft practices cannot us the sofwtare until after that date when I
>suspect ALL the suppliers will have caught up.
>
>Hope that helps.
Thanks, Alison.
Have I got this straight?
The latest rule set - v.9 - was released in December.
The conformance test pack - developed by Informatica - was released to
all suppliers on 5th January.
Suppliers submit their results to the "test team at Exeter" - who
presumably have to take some time looking at each set to ensure
conformance.
So, how does the test team at Exeter prioritise work-flow?
Then we've got a further delay while the QMAS website is developed.
(Looks as though it takes a bit longer than the suppliers). What are the
chances that it will work perfectly first time? I don't forget that the
first version arrived late in 2003 and was developed by NHSIA: is the
same team still intact?
Assuming that there are no problems with the QMAS software, and it is
installed before 28th February , we will have 3 uploads under the v9
rule set - end February, National Prevalence Day and the final, vital
upload on 31.3.07.
I still have the question: why this mess?
*Have* the requirements for the 2006/07 QOF changed, or is this all a
Coding and QOF rules problem?
If the former, has anyone heard of the negotiations?
If the later, why did it happen?
*Surely* the expertise exists in CfH to get it right the first time
round?
Or does it?
MaryH
(ever more depressed ;-<)
--
Mary Hawking
|