Horst Herb wrote: > So is mine. > Would be most happy for national benchmarking parameters - as long as we can > ensure a non-punitive system, else we will see doctors forging parameters > just to appear "good" > I have no experience of it (yet) but I understand the National Collaboratives Program is a worthwhile undertaking.
I had a validation today. No, that's not it. Maybe it was intervention. No, that's not it either. Ah yes, it was an accreditation. We passed with drooping colours. We would have failed under the Third Edition Standards. That's the one where you have to make sure your patients attend for pathology, radiology, specialist appointments and general recalls. It seems to me that this makes a computerised medical record compulsory. Apparently, MD3 would fail as well. Their recall function moves patients from the "Recall" list to the "Action" list when the function is activated. If the patient fails to present for the requested activity, the "Recall" drops out of the system exposing the practice to potential litigation. My colleagues think this is bunkum but the lawyers like it a lot. David P.S. Job wanted for computer literate GP. Level of responsibility limited to his own actions.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
