Russell Brown wrote:
> Morning.
>
> Our PCT have suggested that we adopt a protocol for patient address
> validation which involves read coding for either Patient Address
> Correct (9173) or Patient Address unknown (9163).
The first seems redundant - each line in the address table will have an
associated date on which it was entered, it would be more useful to add
a field for notes such as "we think that is where he lives but are not
sure" if there is actual uncertainty about it than to add a separate
assertion that the address entered is correct in a different part of the
record, where it would add itself to the hubbub of administrivia that
threaten to drown out the thin sensible thread of clinical data and
reasoning the notes more critically contain.
Making a null edit to the address screen and thus resetting the time
(date) on which it was saved to the current time is one way of entering
confirmation that the address has been confirmed with the patient.
I've taken addresses to be correspondence addresses rather than
residence. The address on someone's ID card or internal passport is a
matter for other parts of the State, the NHS just needs to be able to
write to the patient. If someone says they live somewhere, and answers
mail addressed there, then that seems adequate.
The second is bizarre.
If we know that someone's address is not what is on the notes, we should
immediately remove the assertion that we do from their current notes -
their notes showing address = "" then give away the fact that we know we
do not know their address.
(Their previous address is archived, and one might try there again, I
suppose).
I worry about an administrative org that demands we maintain records
with an explicit note elsewhere they are not accurate.
But I do not marvel at it.
--
A
|