 |
 |
Mary - why are you not surprised that iSoft is first and Emis last? This is the first time that iSoft has EVER been first to my knowledge! As far as I know it is open to each supplier to book slots when they anticipate being ready. Due to a very happy alliance with Informatica, iSoft were ready with almost indecent speed - and that is why they were first! John On 08/01/07, Mary Hawking <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > <Rant> > Is anyone else as fed up as I am about the constant changing of QOF > rules so late in the year that it will be impossible to achieve any sort > of reasonable score this year? > > In view of the government's determination to claw back money from > primary care, it does make me wonder whether this is deliberate rather > than the expected incompetence on the part of - who? Those agreeing the > rules? CfH? NHSEmployers/GPC? > > We have had 3 changes in the rule set - the last and most extensive > being in December 2006 - applicable, of course, from 1.4.06. > There is then a delay while the GP system suppliers write the software > for their systems - and a further delay while CfH allocates slots for > conformance testing. > (Does anyone know how the order is decided? Why am I not surprised that > iSoft appears to have been first - and EMIS probably last?) > > *In addition* , I have another problem which is not universal - but not > uncommon. > Our local labs are refusing to release eGFRs - despite having been > instructed to from 1.4.06. > This means that we have - officially - *no way* of classifying patients > as having CKD (Chronic Kidney Disease) 3, 4 or 5 as this is supposed to > depend on having 2 values below 60 ml/min at least 3 months apart. > We are now within 3 months of the end of the year - and there is > National Prevalence Day in February... > > What is a conscientious GP supposed to do? > I could calculate every eGFR when the serum creatinine result is > received using an Internet MORD calculator, and repeat the serum > creatinine on those with eGFRs less than 60 in 3 months. > Or > I could say that I am unable to evaluate my patients for CKD unless > their serum creatinine is raised by normal values > Or > I could use the search provided by my system supplier (EMIS) - which > seems to be the best option but does not allow for local variations in > the lab values due to different methods. > > Yes, my PCT (or rather previous PCT *has* asked for guidance from the > QMAS team - but never received an answer! > > </rant> > > Thank you for listening - if you have - ranting - although futile - *is* > therapeutic! > > Anyone got any views? Cockup or conspiracy? > > Mary Hawking > Harassed senior and QOF partner.. For my sins > > > -- > Mary Hawking >