I afraid you not comments are not very well informed.
The issues about probity relating to the Read codes should not be confused with the value of the codes themselves.
The ease of finding the codes is a function of the search software and there are plenty of good engines which can do an efficient searches and can be integrated in applications by software suppliers who want to be protected from the complexity of the codes.
Many of the oddities in the codes are there to retain compatibility with other international coding systems. Like ICD 9 and 10. Given the US influence in these codes it is not surprising they contain a varied selection to cover a variety of forms of execution. It is unfair to use these example to rubbish the codes.
Those involved in the lack of probity in IMG have gone. The current people at NHS Executive deserve credit for realising how essential the Read codes are not taking the easy route and bowing to the ill informed mob
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ewan Davis
AAH Meditel - Voice +44 (1) 527 579414 Fax +44(1)527 837287
Email [log in to unmask] also at [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 12 April 1998 11:51
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: READ codes
The NHSE have recently said that they are happy with READ codes, and
the development program will continue - incredulous isn't it?
READ codes are c##p. It takes ages to find some things, you cannot
find some important terms at all. There are so many unnecessary and
inappropriate terms. Eg - there is no code for child protection
supervison order, well I couldn't find one... but I found 8 codes for
legal execution ie legal killing of someone. You can be killed by a
spacecraft falling on you in 3 different ways. You can be killed by a
horse falling on you, but not by falling off a horse.
IMHO READ codes are c##p. The NHS has been ripped off - they are
copies with a few extensions of other morbidity/disease dictionaries,
poorly indexed. The IM&T exec should be sacked.
Dr David J Plews
------------------------
|