--On 10 January 2007 12:42 +0000 Adrian Midgley <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> TIM WALTER wrote:
>> Whilst I accept it is good practice to record associated details when
>> you do a mental health review, asthma review etc, is there actually any
>> **requirement** to do anything other than record the appropriate read
>> code?
>>
>> Our PCT have stated that
>>
>> "Reviews within the clinical indicators should not be recorded with a
>> single READ code without supporting evidence recorded demonstrating the
>> required elements of the review"
>>
>> Anyone got a definitive answer?
>>
>>
> It is definitively informatically stupid, although I fear that may be no
> help.
>
> The point is that if we are trying to count, ensure or pay upon a dozen
> specific things then we should count each of those - either each is
> recorded as a read or other code, or it is recorded as a value or
> boolean. The idea of "a review of x" is then even more pointless than
> it is at present.
>
> At that point there is no point at all adding another code saying "x
> reviewed", since it adds no information.
>
> On the other, and my preferred hand, if we review people in such detail
> and to such depth and effect as is necessary to determine how they are
> and what if anything should be done or changed, then a single code
> entered to indicate that a qualified professional has _made a decision_
> that they have been reviewed is useful, but its usefulness is not
> enhanced by additional detail, and if some items which might be reviewed
> in some cases are not, this does not detract from it.
>
> So, informatically, it is stupid.
> Medically, yes, also stupid.
>
> For accountants practicing what they believe to be medicine, by proxy,
> it probably makes the closest approach to sense they manage, until they
> are themselves ill.
>
>
Thanks, I probably wouldn't have put it quite that way but it is how I
understand (?) it.
|