There appear to be three main drivers to the standards in accreditation
(1) Real quality/safety eg
the requirement to have a summary of the clinical problems in the record
(2) Legal - with no real evidence that this produces any improvement in
health
The rather onerous standards of recall systems - what is the evidence
for these?
By supporting them as standards, they become legal requirements
(3) Political - eg the requirement that a patient can be seen within a
certain time, or that results are available over the phone
I support (1), but not (2) and (3).
Surely our college should be defending us against these impositions
rather than colluding in them.
R
Michael Tooth wrote:
David Guest wrote:
Horst Herb wrote:
So is mine.
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
That's the point that I will drop out of any accreditation, as it is an
impossible ask ...
Michael
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
