Years ago, I ran a 'morbidity club,' may God have mercy on my poor soul, get
a life, Herd etc.
Apart from highlighting all the problems with merging data from different
computer systems (a problem which still hasn't gone away, and won't until
MIQUEST or something like it becomes standard in use,) the major difficulty
we faced was the fact that data on GP clinical systems is collected for the
purpose of managing individual patients, not for epidemiogical purposes. The
lesson I learned is that using aggregated GP data for population purposes is
a dangerous thing - it wasn't collected for that purpose, and shouldn't be
used for it.
Looking at the RCGP morbidity collection project, which does collect
population data, it should be noticed that GPs have to work to certain
standards, and get paid in recognition of the extra work involved. I don't
think most GPs would have the time or interest to work to these standards.
A
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Paul Galloway
> Sent: 08 August 1998 11:38
> To: GP-UK
> Subject: Re: PCG IT & Morbidity Recording
>
>
>
> >4 Personal satisfaction knowing not only that the doctor is doing a good
> >job but can demonstrate it to others
> >5 TOS - maybe in the future
>
>
> I'll make a prediction. That the well intentioned coding and conformity
> zealots will talk up the benefits of "all doing the same" , and
> will enthuse
> HA's and DoH that "individualism is really not acceptable in this day and
> age and is damaging the PCG data" .
>
> Administrations like nothing better than confirmity and will
> enthusiastically support the minimum standards for coding quality. The
> Wannabe Public Health Physicians and all the research crowd will be
> drooling over the thought of access to all that data, as will be
> the finance
> people, planners etc.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|