The Great Conflict Between The Process Of Medical Coding, The Task Of Error Reduction, And The Preservation Of Patient Privacy in United Kingdom

Medical coding is designed to aid in patient pretreatment, current procedures, and follow-up treatment. Greater success in patient monitoring and patient treatment is, of course, the ultimate goal. However, the health care industry continuously suffers from errors and other adverse events, even with the advances in medical coding processes. The full comprehension of the cause and effects remain beyond a predictable pattern of current understanding. Concerns such as error severity, frequency of occurrences, and methods of prevention are hampered by the lack of comprehensive reporting methods. The total impact of these events remains outside the combined means of collecting and applying knowledge.


Definitions

Medical errors can be defined as mistakes that, due to the performance and/or thoughts of the associated medical staff, result in avoidable adverse events. Yet a lack of concrete definitions for medical errors, accompanied by the absence of an integrated and coordinated monitoring and reporting system results in the unsurpassable task of trying to distinguish preventable mistakes from that which is unavoidable.

Due to simple forgetfulness, overwork, and deliberate concealment, we may never develop a precise method for measuring the frequency with which avoidable health care errors occur. By default, we are too often forced to rely on human interaction to recognize and distinguish errors from bad outcomes.


A Global Situation

The epidemic of avoidable medical errors is of global concern. For example: the United Kingdom has suffered from the adverse effects of well-publicized complications pertaining to pediatric surgery outcomes in Bristol. British authorities attribute forty thousand annual deaths to medical error. That is a 3.7 percent death rate. The risk factor is out of hand.

In a report founded by the Australian Department of Human Services medical error is reported to be a serious cause of morbidity and mortality. The situation is global in nature. Australia, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States are struggling to address the situation.

The British Ministry of Health works to provide the necessary research funds, and to encourage the researchers to dig deeper into the ongoing occurrences of medical errors. The goal focus is on clinical governance programs re-engineered to updated mechanisms that improve and advance patient safety practices. In Australia, a national system aimed at quality services, error reduction, and advanced report processing is being used to help relieve the problem.

Yet nations differ in the thoughts and opinions of local leaders. Efforts to convert the research and application methods into a usable and standardized practice remain hindered. Even with the shared advances in medical coding procedures, confusion remains across national boundaries. Views on the confidentiality of patient information, attitudes toward government regulations, and basic differences in local health care organization remain in conflict with efforts to correct the problems.

Yet the light at the end of the tunnel is not completely out of sight. Though recording methods, tracking patterns, and the approach to medical coding may differ from nation to nation, there is evidence that the process of reporting may be a bit more universal. Global leaders have a clear-cut responsibility to address this issue, to devote resources to the cause of study and resolution, and then to share those lessons learned.


Objective Versus Achievement

Throughout the United Kingdom, the goal of medical services revolves around providing every individual the opportunity to access safe, high quality primary health care. Now safety includes health care services that stand accountable for the outcomes, provide evidence-based conclusions, and support an ongoing quality improvement program.

For the Australian consumer, such information and reporting is currently very limited. The personal patient experiences in primary health care involve limited monitoring. The quality of the care, the continuity of the care, and the respect for personal values and preferences are typical patient concerns. Yet the in Australia, these matters, as well as those pertaining to the patient's physical comfort, understanding of the procedures, and emotional responses remain on the outskirts of modern technology.


One Major Hindrance

When patients submit their personally identifiable information to a health care provider, they assume a measure of confidentiality. In fact, the Data Protection Act of 1998 ensures a certain level of patient discretion. However, it also permits certain uses of “sensitive personal data” for medical purposes. This leaves a situation that seeks to combine personal confidentiality and error prevention efforts into a single package.

Such a solutions does not work well, especially when patient consent is required before pre-existing data can be released into the hands of error research teams. Research workers are often forced to practice “anonymisation”, which aims to collect useful data while preserving the confidentiality of the data subjects. This always includes a risk of losing the very data that is so critical to error detection.

Herein we have the great conflict between the process of medical coding, the task of error reduction, and the preservation of patient privacy.