TIM WALTER wrote:
> Whilst I accept it is good practice to record associated details when you do
> a mental health review, asthma review etc, is there actually any
> **requirement** to do anything other than record the appropriate read code?
>
> Our PCT have stated that
>
> "Reviews within the clinical indicators should not be recorded with a single
> READ code without supporting evidence recorded demonstrating the required
> elements of the review"
>
> Anyone got a definitive answer?
>
>
It is definitively informatically stupid, although I fear that may be no
help.
The point is that if we are trying to count, ensure or pay upon a dozen
specific things then we should count each of those - either each is
recorded as a read or other code, or it is recorded as a value or
boolean. The idea of "a review of x" is then even more pointless than
it is at present.
At that point there is no point at all adding another code saying "x
reviewed", since it adds no information.
On the other, and my preferred hand, if we review people in such detail
and to such depth and effect as is necessary to determine how they are
and what if anything should be done or changed, then a single code
entered to indicate that a qualified professional has _made a decision_
that they have been reviewed is useful, but its usefulness is not
enhanced by additional detail, and if some items which might be reviewed
in some cases are not, this does not detract from it.
So, informatically, it is stupid.
Medically, yes, also stupid.
For accountants practicing what they believe to be medicine, by proxy,
it probably makes the closest approach to sense they manage, until they
are themselves ill.
|