[log in to unmask] writes
>Ian Purves and Jon Rogers put forward very reasonable arguments for a
>benefit to Society from GPs and hospitals using Read Codes.
>
>It would be quite sensible to supply a coding system for this purpose.
>
>They make absolutely no case for GPs paying for it.
The funding of the NHS, and the principles of direct and indirect
reimbursement are a strange, historic and almost mystic subject, on
which I have no comment!
What I do feel is that we need a coding system, none are perfect, but
the current 4 byte set is not bad for GPs, the Version 2 set is not bad
for hospital encoders, and Version 3 is pretty good for GPs, hospital
encoders, consultants, physios, nurses, etc...
That statement is not yet proven, but the GP reaction for example to the
Version 3 Read Code GP flagged set was encouraging. The GP SWG is
currently refining and checking that "flagged set". As the codes are so
comprehensive, GPs GENERALLY only need to see familiar terms, but need
the full set perhaps to deal with a hospital discharge message.
The GP flagged set is a set of terms that a GP would be instantly
familiar and comfortable with. The current list has about 12,500
flagged terms. It is expected that this principle of "flagging" will be
used by other clinical groups to identify their familiar terms.
--
Jon Rogers Tel: 44 117 950 7100
Southmead Health Centre Fax: 44 117 944 5498
Bristol BS10 6DF UK e-mail: [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|