Thanks for response,
William i think the best to evoid problem it's preferable to keep the same code when transterring patient to another facility and use a symbol which can show that it's about a transfered patient.
Dans le désert, on peut toujours tomber sur une oasis
======================================
Jules BASHI B., MD, MPH,
Infectious Disease and Tropical Medecine (Resident)
Expert in Health Information System --- En date de : Jeu 20.11.08, William Watembo <wat...@gmail.com> a écrit : |
Patrick
Whitaker
Technical Officer
Health Care Informatics
Unit
Health
Statistics and Informatics Department
World Health
Organization
Tel. direct: +41 22 791
1372
E-mail:
whit...@who.int
The Idea of unique ID is good and really easy to manage (even if the patient is transfert, the transfert information can be capture in other variable in the patient data).
Onather problem is have we to generate the ID patient at the central level or can we conceive the possibility "decentralization" of ID attribution? |
|
Dans le désert, on peut toujours tomber sur une oasis
======================================
Jules BASHI B., MD, MPH,
Infectious Disease and Tropical Medecine (Resident)
Expert in Health Information System |
| --- En date de : Ven 21.11.08, Whitaker, Patrick <whit...@who.int> a écrit : |
That sound good however on Tanzania Strategic Information aspect in particular AIDSRelief supported Local Partner Treatment facilities are using NACP CTC2 Database (MS Access) which has the Identifiers for data export into CTC3 database which used to, merge the entire Database for all Local Partner Treatment facilities which are providing HIV/AIDS Services at Central Level. Through the use of Identifier all name and key Personal information are removed automatically as part of System Security.
Best Regards
__________________
Essau H. Amenye,
Deputy Strategic Information Advisor,
AIDSRelief Project,
SRA International
(formerly Constella Group, LLC)
Box 7523,
Arusha, Tanzania
Mobile
Number: +255755979598
Email: eam...@constellagroup.com
Website:http://www.constellagroup.com
<BR<BR
Colleagues,
Clearly the issue of patient identification has emerged as an important area of interest and priority to a number of participants.
May I suggest that we create some time in the agenda of the meeting itself to take a deeper look at the issue? May I further suggest that we consider the following aspects for deeper discussion?
1) What are the data use implications of how patient identifiers are constructed? What are beneficial uses? What are inappropriate uses? How can the ID be constructed to prevent inappropriate uses?
2) So far, the main reasons that have emerged for using geographical and/or facility information in the construction of the identifier itself has been around the difficulty of managing number creation in a centralized way at the national level. To take the contrarian view, are there examples when patient IDs have been successfully managed centrally at the national level without any identifying elements in the construction of the number itself? Was this in an African setting? If not, do the same principles apply?
3) Do we also need to look at other forms of identifiers? Facilities? Health services? How do personal IDs relate to other national ID efforts outside of the health sector?
Others?
I look forward to getting down to the details of peoples' different experiences once we are in Dar.
Cordially,
Christopher Bailey
Health Care Informatics
World Health Organization
</html