On Sun, 12 Apr 1998, Andrew Herd <[log in to unmask]> wrote on gp-uk
>If
>Read version 3 really is as good as everyone claims, why, out of interest,
>is it so so overdue/hard to find?
It was "overdue", by about 1 year, when the Clinical Terms Project
showed that the limited proposed change to Version 2 structure was
inadequate to cope with the full scope of terms needed to support NHS
clinical records without "code explosion"... the CCC quite rightly took
stock (circa 1993), and developed Version 3 with qualifiers and
templates.
The new structure is able to cope with just about anything, including
the superset (ie all previous codes from earlier versions), change
control, user specific subsets (such as GP subset), allowing
corrections, etc, etc.
"Hard to find".... until there is clear and unambiguous support for
Version 3 from the NHS Executive, it is difficult to justify the
development and investment in V3 for GPs. We can "make do" with our
existing versions, but the limitations will become clearer as time goes
on, particularly as we move to increased clinical messaging and the
electronic patient record.
--
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]
GP and Member, NW Bristol Locality Commissioning Group; Treasurer, PHCSG;
Chairman, GP SWG Read Codes; Medical Advisor, AAH Meditel; Member NACGP;
Vice Chairman, Avon LMC; Member, RCGP Informatics Group & JCG(GMSC/RCGP);
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|