So are the Meditel systems all using Read version 3?
With regard to your later remark, that is exactly my point. Read is the
*only* alternative. It doesn't mean it is good!
A
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] On Behalf Of Ewan Davis
> Sent: 13 April 1998 07:29
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: READ codes
>
>
> By and large, David's comments aren't that far off the mark,
> although it is correct that slow searches are largely the result
> of inefficient clinical system implementations, at least in the
> versions currently in the field. If Read version 3 really is as
> good as everyone claims, why, out of interest, is it so so
> overdue/hard to find?
>
> Read 3 has only recently got itself into a state where it is
> implementable and the political, uncertainty hasn't helped. What
> people, particularly the media, continually ignore is the wide
> spread used of earlier version of Read in general practice and
> the support NHS CCC has put in to maintaining and devoping these
> earlier versions.
>
> The IMG finds itself in the unfortunate position of having to
> support the Read Codes because there is no other alternative,
> which isn't quite the same as saying that they are good.
>
> Given the investment in coding systems internationally the fact
> that Read is the only option tells me that Read is something more
> than the best of a bad lot. Read stands up well against clinical
> coding systems like ICD and SNOMED (indeed it does this in part
> by incorporating them), It covers areas vital to the EPR but
> outside the scope of other coding systems and deals with some UK
> specifics vital to the NHS.
>
> Andrew (-:
>
> 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]
>
|