> So does that address (at this "conceptual level") the problem
> referred to in Ross's point or is there something else in here ?
No.
My point is that the overwhelming majority of systems currently
being fielded as part of the IM&T strategy do not permit patients
- or for that matter doctors - to opt out of information sharing.
A patient is within his rights to forbid a hospital consultant to
put information about a course of treatment on the Clearing system
because that will result in this information being automatically
shared with, for example, HES. However, the hospital will then not
get paid.
Similarly, a girl who turns up for contraceptives and refuses to
share this fact with the health authority (maybe mum works there)
will have to be treated at the GP's expense, as the IOS claim will
not be paid unless there is a valid name attached.
This locking together of clinical and administrative information
is quite unnecessary but appears to form a central plank of IMG
thinking. It is bound to lead to continuing serious trouble in the
future
Ross
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|