On gp-uk Laurence Miles <[log in to unmask]> writes
>From: Jon Rogers <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>I agree... the Read Codes are remarkable!
>
>I know you are very involved with Read codes - can you tell us what is
>really happening with Read 3?
Read 3 is the output of the clinical terms project, involving thousands
of clinicians over 3-4 years. The V3 Codes cover most areas of primary,
secondary care, and professions allied to medicaine.
>
>I first saw a version two years ago, nearly, but it has been regularly
>panned in the press, even to the extent of saying that Read 3 was in
>imminent danger of being chucked away completely.
Don't confuse the row over James Read and his 1989/90 arrangements with
NHS (much misinterpreted IMO) and the Version 3 Terms. The latter will
prove very welcome by clinicians trying to record important concepts in
the care of their patients.
>
>I personally thought that Read 3 looked excellent, but I seem to be in a
>(very small) minority....
Most people haven't had a chance to see V3. I am proud to be involved
in V3 and the GP aspects of V3, particularly the GP subset (which
encourages common conditions to be displayed first) and the superset
(which ensures that all existing Read Codes are included - no mapping or
code conversion required from existing systems).
The criticisms of Read are mostly aimed at the person, James, the NHSCCC
organisation or idiosyncratic examples in 4 byte or V2 sets, most of
which are direct copies from other classification systems. The terms of
the clinical terms project are very strong.
The process of encouraging GP and hospital systems to use V3 is in it's
infancy, but we definitely need the terms if we are to record and use
what we do...
--
Jon Rogers
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|