Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 594347,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/594347/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 160,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. (Dr.) Shaban",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 139,
        "legal_name": "Naomi Namsi Shaban",
        "slug": "naomi-shaban"
    },
    "content": "mandate of the health records officer or the technician who is involved in that. The person who transmits can only be the medical officer. It cannot be the technician who was charged with keeping the record. So, we have to be specific on who keeps the record and who transmits the record to the next level, whether it is a referral or a surgery. It is only the medical officer who is mandated to do this. So, I have a problem and I think most of my colleagues will bear with it and will understand what I am saying. How do we ensure that there is a body to regulate the health records professionals but, at the same time, not give them a duty which is supposed to be carried out by medical officers? So, this is a very thin line but we have to decide on what is their work. Since the law is very clear on the work of the medical officer, we have to put those health records professionals in the compartment where they belong. I just want to talk a bit about private practice. It is impossible, in fact it cannot happen, that a person who has been supportive of a medical officer can now go and run a practice and yet, the client who went to that institution went to see the medical officer, and not a health records officer. So, the person who has had direct contact and who has had clinical examination and proper checkups on the patient is the medical officer. Since it is the medical officer, how then can a health record professional run a private practice? Those are the things that we need to look at. I just want to say that whereas Hon. Neto had intended to have a body to regulate the health records and professionals in the health records sector, we have to be very careful. We might have to do a lot of amendments to this Bill that in the end, you might not have the Bill the way it looks so that it reflects what those professionals ought to do. Before I sit, I want to point out that, in the event it is not possible for them to have private practice, then it means the Exchequer must fund the Board that has been mentioned. If the Exchequer has got to fund the Board, then this Bill ought to have gone through the Budget and Appropriations Committee (BAC). It ought to have been given a go ahead as far as Treasury is concerned, so that we can know that the funds are available. Then we will not be legislating for naught. With those few remarks, I end by saying that my colleague Hon. Aghostino Neto has done well in bringing this Bill because he is not from the health profession. However, we still need to agree on the amendments and the changes that we need to put in this Bill. We also need to ensure that the BAC has no problem with this particular Bill. I beg to support."
}