If it was just the medication and allergies/adverse reactions, I think
(but would like to have a tool to confirm it - seeing apparently I'm the
one liable for any omissions if there is a patient problem - which was
*legally* valid.)
If data is to be uploaded from summaries, then definitely not! ;->>
If you look at summaries, they are there to serve different purposes
e.g. management in the practice, referral to a speciality, for an
insurance report, and so on: is it possible to have a general purpose
summary suitable for all situations?
So, the records in my practice are not fit for all future possible SCR
uses - and no further information will be given out to patients or
practices - so they are not of an appropriate quality for sharing in
this fashion..
Looks as though other practices may have reached the same conclusion if
the level of refusal by practices which have been approached (we
haven't) as reported in Pulse is true!
Mary
PS was abolition of the SCR a manifesto commitment for either of the
coalition partners?
Does anyone know why this change of heart?
<Campaign mode> why don't you join me and ask *your* MP to find out the
reason for this change from pre-election stance, and what are the future
plans for the use of the SCR ?</campaign mode>
In message
<[log in to unmask]>, Geoff
Schrecker <[log in to unmask]> writes
>
>
>
>On 4 June 2010 13:33, Robert Treharne Jones <[log in to unmask]
>> wrote:
> and where GP practices and PCTs are satisfied that data are of an
> appropriate quality for sharing.’
>
>
>I wonder how they will define that!
>
>Cheers Geoff
--
Mary Hawking
|