Jeremy Rogers <[log in to unmask]> writes
>
>I have grave doubts about these definitions of 'classifications' and
>'nomenclatures'.
I think that Ian has clarified what he means in another message, and as
a bog standard GP I get lost in all this talk about definitions. I want
a term set that doesn't lose my exisiting data, copes better with the
real world of GP than "Accident in space-craft" stuff (which is not Read
but ICD which Read Version 2 mapped onto), aids me in reporting,
analysing and in decision support in my practice and in my
communications with my hospital and with other practices when my
patients move away....
>What criteria would you put forward to determine whether you *had* got
>a working version of READ 3.1 ? How would you test whether those criteria
>had been met ?
When it can be used to fulfil the above requirements.
The GP SWG is working with a number of technical advisors from GP system
suppliers (there is also a parallel group for the hospital side) and the
NHSCCC to define what is required before we can implement.
That group called the "Primary Care Product Review Panel" meets monthly
and also communicates daily via a list-server very similar to gp-uk. A
number of members are on both!
I will copy these Read messages to the PCPRP list-server.
Jeremy, it is a continuing source of distress to me that NHSCCC and
Galen still do not seem to be using each others undoubted resource
fully. We all want much the same thing, each of us has different
strengths to bring it about. Any thoughts on how to do it?
--
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]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|