Nope, but then I am not a techie unlike most of them here

Dr Gillian Braunold wrote:
>
> It is crystal clear- to me- so which bit don’t you understand?
>
> The des requirement for checking addresses necessary so that the data 
> quality on pds is maintained. It will be mainatained well if people 
> synchronise their local system with PDS by working on line effectively.
>
> Is that clearer?
>
> Gillian
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* GP-UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Trefor Roscoe
> *Sent:* 22 February 2007 22:42
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: IM&T DES
>
> W T F
>
> I am sorry Gillian but unless this is resent in English, Apollo 13 may 
> be invoked
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* GP-UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Dr Gillian 
> Braunold
> *Sent:* 22 February 2007 11:07
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: IM&T DES
>
> As author- I thought I might comment!
>
> what is required is for correcting addresses as mismatches become 
> evident with pds/local systems. This is demonstrating working 
> "on-Line" as opposed to with card out and only putting it in for 
> choose and book. If you are working on line- then the messages re 
> mismatch come up as prompts and the databases are synchronised.
>
> There is no requirement for coding address checking although if people 
> find this helpful then of course that's up to them.
>
> Gillian
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* GP-UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Trefor Roscoe
> *Sent:* 21 February 2007 12:54
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: IM&T DES
>
> Its not part of the DES. The DES cannot be tweaked locally. Refuse
>
> Trefor
>
> GPC IT C’tee
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* GP-UK [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Russell Brown
> *Sent:* 21 February 2007 08:57
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* IM&T DES
>
> Morning.
>
> Our PCT have suggested that we adopt a protocol for patient address 
> validation which involves read coding for either Patient Address 
> Correct (9173) or Patient Address unknown (9163).
>
> Now, reading the orange book, I can find no mention of a requirement 
> to code for this.
>
> Component 3 (para 13) reads:
>
> "Maintenance of patients' addresses with opportunistic regular 
> validation with patients - the practice is sensible location within 
> the health service for the patients' addresses to be maintained and 
> validated for accuracy. This will require administrative effort and 
> new workflows to ensure that address changes are processed accurately. 
> It would be expected that practices will validate a patients' address 
> and other relevant details at the point of referral and/or when a 
> practice has received information about a patient that contains a 
> conflicting address."
>
> I suspect they want us to "prove" that we are doing the validation, 
> and to stop us gaming by repeatedly checking the same patients' time 
> and again.
>
> But to my mind, this coding would be outwith the DES, and so would 
> need a LES for the "over and above" nature of this proposed work.
>
> Comments please?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/696 - Release Date: 21/02/2007 15:19
>