[log in to unmask],Net writes:
>>THere are, for instance, 96 patients on my list of
>>whom I have no record of their ever having been seen in the Practice.
THere are for instance 1771 patients on y list of
whom I have a record of their being seen in the Practice, at some time.
>Whilst this data could be seen as usable, is it not indicative of the
>negative approach that pervades everything these days ...
>i.e. it emphasises what we are *not* doing
Whilst this data could not be seen as usable, it is an example of the
sort of bean counting which pervades everything these days.
I pulled that (longstanding - originally set up to make money out of
new patient checks) search when I was doing part of the LMC/HA
collaborative IHD/Statin audit.
It came to me at that point that all the questions being asked in the
audit were ones I did not want the answers to. And that the audit was
using time that I could have spent considering certain patients who
might benefit to instead list the ones who didn't need considering in
that respect at that time. Not uniformly, it did include a cell
identifying the people taking Statins for whom no financial
authorisation exists at present.
SO not so much an Eeyore, Kate, as a Tigger - "find me some work to do"
rather than "show me where I have erred - or succeeded"
For instance, rather than count the number of people with h/o MI who
are on statin and aspirin with choolesterol in the right zone, I want
the notes of the first of the people who are not on statin and aspirin,
with cholesterol sorted out - AND with no reason recorded for this.
I don't want to have lists of people or even a count of them where
everything is as it should be. THey may give the occasional warm fuzz,
but I don't want to keep going over old work, I want to pick up new
stuff.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|