A "particular" patient once came hurrying back to me with a referral letter in hand, to ask me what the "Borderline Personality Disorder" was that I had included in her history. jh
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 22:01, David de Bhál wrote: > If you knew that the patient could go home and look at the record you might > have a much better document, a better record of care. If he did not record > the vaccination the patient could bring it to his attention and if it were > noted that the mother died of, say, breast cancer, rather than bowel > cancer, then the patient could clarify the record. Were this to happen too > frequently then the doctor might find he lost the occasional patient. > > Some of it has to do with full and frank disclosure and we need to get away > from the mentality of "It wasn't me, nobody saw me, you can't prove it". > Everybody knows that things go wrong in medicine but if you are slack then > you deserve to have your ass sued. > > How many hypertensives have a target BP written in the notes? How objective > is the evidence? > > David de Bhál > www.v-practice.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of john hilton > Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 11:46 PM > To: General Practice Computing Group Talk > Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Clinical software recommendations > > There is another aspect. The "quality" of medical records varies by many > orders of magnitude, between practitioners. A GP who is meticulous in the > recording and upkeep of records, taking care and considerable time, can be > thwarted by another who fails to record immunisations, important history or > diagnoses or investigations or by one who records spurious crap. Result is > that the usefulness of the record as an accurate record is diminished. > A meticulous doctor will be able to put the record to better use in > managing > > the patient. > Further, a fully consumer-orientated record (with patient having > permissions > > to modify?) will render it effectively useless. > jh > > On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:50, Mario Ruiz wrote: > > It appears that the only reason for the practitioner to own the record > > is purely medico-legal, aka ACD's (ass covering documents). > > _______________________________________________ > Gpcg_talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.6/324 - Release Date: 4/25/2006 -- MIKE: Right, that's it, we're going to the launderette, now! VYVYAN: We can't Mike. MIKE: Why not? VYVYAN: Because they don't open for another eight hours. It's midnight. _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
