The Clinical Effectiveness Commitee is producing a list of protocols that have been developed in an evidence based way which should have some comment as to their usefulness in the development of department practices.
It is also producing some itself but why reinvent the wheel if you can borrow a smoothly running one?
Whether you turn them into a proforma depends to certain extent on your departments staffing and style. Surely we should not all do the selfsame thing? A bit of variety in this world strikes me as a good thing.
Merry Christmas to you all and I hope the 24 hour boozers go home instead of dribbling into our departments
>Shouldn't BAEM &FAEM be kicking out these type of tools ie proformas pathways etc. seems that everyone up and down the country are doing the same type of thing. ??reinventing the wheel
>
>Surely most of these are the same type of pathway. same evidence base. only different local variations.
>
>when I worked in leeds, we looked at dvt guidelines. It was uncanny how similar (even graphically) they were to other depts.
>
>merry chrimbo to all acad readers!
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: MICHAEL DUDLEY
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 5:48 PM
>Subject: Re: Proformas
>
>Simon
>
>I think proformas can have a part to play - for seniors, juniors, and ENPs. Often quick to fill in thus saving a lot of time, can act as an important aide memoire, a guide to management and diagnosis, and encourage appropriate investigations (e.g. Xrays) - Ankle injuries for example.
>
>However, there should not be too many of them. As implied, there also needs to be some common sense so that the case is not forced to fit the proforma, and one should not feel constrained by them. Like a lot of things in life (e.g. red wine, dark chocolate) - when used in moderation they can be beneficial.
>
>Finally, at a time of suppposed good will and festive cheer, I suspect I speak for many lurkers on the list when I say that it would have been gracious of your grammatical detractor to have said sorry to you.
>
>Happy Christmas!
>
>Mike Dudley
>EM Consultant
>Airedale
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: McCormick Simon Dr, Consultant, A&E
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 8:24 AM
>Subject: Re: Proformas
>
>Dear Adrian,
>
>Thanks for feeling the need to pick up upon my grammar/spelling in a reasonably public forum, this is of course something you have done to others in the past but usually in a less aggressive and condescending way. You are quite right, there are problems with this e-mail, which are clearly visible to me now, but as this was the third time I'd tried to type it (my e-mail server and spell checker kept crashing) at the end of what was already a particularly frustrating day, I guess I missed them. Terribly sorry to have irritated and depressed you but perhaps cutting a colleague some slack was beyond you yesterday.
>
>Merry Christmas
>
>Simon
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Adrian Fogarty [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: 20 December 2005 18:26
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Proformas
>
>I'm sorry, it's been a long time since I had a whinge about grammar, but the email below has completely lost me. The third sentence finishes with a clause: "and even if they do follow them." but then ends abruptly just when I was expecting something to follow! Later, the sixth sentence finishes with: "something I'm convinced proformas will do" which doesn't appear to make any sense given the overall context of the post. There are numerous other minor stylistic issues that bother me but none of these appear to affect the meaning, so I won't mention them here, apart from the irritating habit of using the word "loose" when the author clearly means "lose": a depressing but increasing "trend" over the last few months.
>
>AF
>
>"McCormick Simon Dr, Consultant, A&E" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Folks,
>
>We are continuing to face the problem of increasingly junior staff trying to see increasing numbers of patients, whilst their supervision is by junior or locum middle grades and only a few consultants. This inevitably leads to errors. We already have guidelines available but you cannot guarantee staff read them, and even if they do follow them. Audit just highlights the problem but by then they have moved on to another job. A suggested solution is the use of proformas but this just makes my heart sink as it seems a cheap alternative to good (continuing) education, supervision and experience. Surely we need to encourage free thinking and understanding of the subtleties of medicine, something I'm convinced proformas will do. I've seen similar things used before and juniors either loose sight of the big picture or shoe horn cases that don't quite fit in to these systems. I can see the short term financial, time and clinical risk gains but aren't the loss of developing good clinical skills and that 6th sense inevitable and unwanted? Or am I being an old fashioned fuddy duddy and worrying about nothing.
>
>Simon McCormick
>
>
>Rotherham
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________ National Patient Safety Agency - supporting Doctors.net.uk members in safe practice. http://www.doctors.net.uk/NPSA ________________________________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________
National Patient Safety Agency - supporting Doctors.net.uk members in safe practice.
http://www.doctors.net.uk/NPSA
________________________________________________________________________
|
