Hi David,
So the argument for serious functional certification and accreditation of GP (and specialist and hospital) systems firms.
I wonder is NEHTA (or anyone else) getting its / their act together on this?
Cheers
David
---- Dr David G More MB, PhD, FACHI Phone +61-2-9438-2851 Fax +61-2-9906-7038 Skype Username : davidgmore E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] HealthIT Blog - www.aushealthit.blogspot.com On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 16:42:47 +1000, David Guest wrote:
> 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.
|
_______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
