In article <002f01bdc2b8$99cd9500$0100007f@localhost>, Paul Galloway
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>For God's sake don't let your enthusiasm for the subject mean that we all
>end up having to do it as a matter of course. Get together with your local
>colleague and dig in for new money, or don't give them tha data. If it's so
>valuable, let them either get it from the hospital end, or pay us for the
>effort.
but if fewer patients "slip through the net" and have their risk factors
properly minimised etc.. surely the EASIEST way to do this is by the
standardised morbidity recording. This will take time, each GP will have
to have OWNERSHIP of the protocols to be well motivated to use them and
can target local pATIENT NEED.
This probably does add 2 mins to each consultation initially, but my
diabetic/asthma templates are now barely seconds slower than pre-
computer,(recording more data takes more time whatever the mode of
collection) ...but ONLY a few seconds because the template has been set
up to mimic the way I work. THERE IS NO WAY TEMPLATES SHOULD BE FORCED
UPON US - but we can all work from concensus guidelines..
eg http://www.irnham1.demon.co.uk/sommaag1.htm
More data = more time = thus we need more re-imbursement = NO DOUBT
If people feel this should be TOS later... the workload (massive)
implications need to be recognised from the start. lets get the
discussion out in the open like this NOW
Huw
Medical links http://www.irnham.demon.co.uk/links.htm
http://www.irnham.demon.co.uk/family.jpg (personal touch (wife behind
the camera)
--
Huw Thomas
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|