Johanthan
given that almost a third of the existing Quality and Outcome Framework
indicators are directly underpinned by Pathology testing, I would agree that
we need to have an opinion.
http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/qof06~summclinical#SecondaryPreventi
onofCoronary
With all the criticism of the QOFs, we cannot deny that it was a very good
way of linking "standards" of healthcare to the "delivery" of those standards,
with the consequence of delivering "clinical outcomes". The scheme offered
inentives to meet the standards.
I would suggest that a new Quality and Outcome Framework should continue
to have clinical outcomes (such as HbA1c) and for these to be expanded, e.g.
Brain Natriuretic peptides. In addition there should be "high level outcomes"
such as access to phlebotomy, results knowledge etc.
martin
------ACB discussion List Information--------
This is an open discussion list for the academic and clinical
community working in clinical biochemistry.
Please note, archived messages are public and can be viewed
via the internet. Views expressed are those of the individual and
they are responsible for all message content.
ACB Web Site
http://www.acb.org.uk
List Archives
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN.html
List Instructions (How to leave etc.)
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/
|