<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Health License Defense &#187; Medical Records</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.healthlicensedefense.com/b/tag/medical-records/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.healthlicensedefense.com/b</link>
	<description>The blogs of our partners.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:10:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>More Rule Changes Proposed By the Texas Medical Board</title>
		<link>http://www.healthlicensedefense.com/b/2010/07/more-rule-changes-proposed-by-the-texas-medical-board/</link>
		<comments>http://www.healthlicensedefense.com/b/2010/07/more-rule-changes-proposed-by-the-texas-medical-board/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2010 21:54:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon Porter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Doctors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medical Records]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Practitioner's Databank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PHP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PHP. Physicians Health Program]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[physician-patient relationship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Texas Medical Board]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Texas Medical Board Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Texas medical license]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TMB]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TMB attorney]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.healthlicensedefense.com/b/?p=138</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On July 16th, the Texas Medical Board published it proposed rule changes to be considered at it next Board meeting in August.  It is important for licensees and other interested parties to review these rules to determine how it affects you and your practice. 
 If you support or oppose a rule change, you can write to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On July 16<sup>th</sup>, the Texas Medical Board published it proposed rule changes to be considered at it next Board meeting in August.  It is important for licensees and other interested parties to review these rules to determine how it affects you and your practice. </p>
<p> If you support or oppose a rule change, you can write to the Board with any concern you may have.  The following are the proposed changes:</p>
<p><strong> </strong>Proposed Rules General Provisions – Meetings The Texas Medical Board (Board) proposes amendments to <span style="text-decoration: underline">§161.5,</span> concerning Meetings. The amendment to</p>
<p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">§161.5</span></strong> provides that <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">adoption of committee minutes are to be approved by the full board rather than by the individual committees.</span></strong></p>
<p>Proposed Rules Licensure – Examinations Accepted for Licensure &#8211; The Texas Medical Board (Board) proposes amendments to <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">§163.6,</span></strong> concerning Examinations Accepted for Licensure. The amendment to</p>
<p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">§163.6</span></strong> <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">clarifies that if an applicant takes multiple types of licensure examinations, attempts at comparable sections shall be combined to determine eligibility for licensure</span></strong>.<em> (counting towards the 3 attempts)</em> Language is currently under a different subsection, and the language is being moved to be cleared on its application.</p>
<p>Proposed Rules Medical Records &#8211; The Texas Medical Board (Board) proposes amendments to §165.1, concerning Medical Records. The amendment to <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">§165.1</span></strong> provides that <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">physicians receiving medical records from other practitioners in relation to the treatment of a specific patient, must only keep those records that are salient to the patient&#8217;s treatment.</span></strong></p>
<p>(This rule change I have a question about.  Who decides what is “salient” to the patient’s treatment.  Likewise, what does it mean to the doctor if he or she did not obtain “salient” records?)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Proposed Rules Telemedicine &#8211; The Texas Medical Board (Board) proposes amendments to §174.2 and proposes new §§174.7, 174.9 and 174.11, concerning Telemedicine. The</p>
<p>amendment to <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">§174.2,</span></strong> concerning <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">Definitions</span></strong>, defines distant site provider, established medical site, face-to-face visit, patient site location, patient site presenter; amends the definitions for physician-patient e-mail, telemedicine medical services; and deletes the definition for telepresenter.</p>
<p> <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">New §174.7</span></strong>, concerning Telemedicine Medical Services Provided at Sites other than an Established Medical Site,</p>
<p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">establishes under what conditions a distant site provider may provide telemedicine medical services at sites other than an established medical site, such as a patient&#8217;s home</span></strong>.</p>
<p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">New §174.9</span></strong>, concerning Technology and Security Requirements, establishes <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">requirements relating to technology and security regarding the provision of telemedicine medical services and physician-patient communications</span></strong> <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">through e-mail</span></strong>.</p>
<p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">New §174.11</span></strong>, concerning <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">On-call Services, establishes that physicians in the same specialty who provide reciprocal services may provide on-call telemedicine medical services for each other&#8217;s patients. </span></strong></p>
<p>Proposed Rules Fees and Penalties – Application Fees &#8211; The Texas Medical Board (Board) proposes amendments to <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">§175.1</span></strong>, concerning <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">Application Fees</span></strong>. The amendment to §175.1 <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">eliminates application fees for regular temporary licenses for distinguished professor temporary licenses and adds the fee amount for a regular temporary license to the application fee for full licensure, provisional licenses, telemedicine licenses, reissuance of licenses following revocation, and administrative license</span></strong>.</p>
<p>Proposed Rules Certification of Non-Profit Health Organizations – Complaint Procedure Notification The Texas Medical Board (Board) proposes amendments to  <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">§177.13</span></strong>, concerning Complaint Procedure Notification. The amendment to <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">§177.13</span></strong> <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">updates the name of the Texas Medical Board</span></strong> as used in this chapter.  <em>Formerly the notice just said &#8220;the board&#8221;</em></p>
<p> Proposed Rules Investigations – Requests for Information and Records from Physicians &#8211; The Texas Medical Board (Board) proposes amendments to §179.4, concerning Requests for Information and Records from Physicians. The amendment to <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">§179.4 clarifies that this section applies in all respects to licensure applicants</span></strong>.</p>
<p> Proposed Rules Texas Physician Health Program and Rehabilitation Orders – Texas Physician Health Program and Rehabilitations Orders The Texas Medical Board (Board) proposes amendments to §§180.2 &#8211; 180.4, concerning Texas Physician Health Program and Rehabilitation Orders. The amendment to</p>
<p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">§180.2,</span></strong> concerning <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">Definitions</span></strong>, <em><span style="text-decoration: underline">adds that the Texas Physician Health and Rehabilitation Committee shall also be referred to as the TXPHP Advisory Committee.</span></em> The amendment to §180.3, concerning Texas Physician Health Program (PHP), amends language to be consistent with the proposed amendments to §180.2.</p>
<p>The <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">amendment to §180.4</span></strong>, concerning Operation of Program, provides that the <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">drug vendor used by the PHP must be approved by the Texas Medical Board, and establishes standards for processing referrals, requiring evaluations, settings terms for agreements with participants, and facilitating interventions.</span></strong></p>
<p> (I take some issue with this too.  The TxPHP should be given the freedom to enter into its own contracts without the Board being involved in it.  I am concerned about the relationship between the Board and the current vendor, First Advantage.)</p>
<p> Proposed Rules Procedural Rules &#8211; The Texas Medical Board (Board) proposes amendments to §187.27, concerning Written Answers in SOAH Proceedings and Default Orders, and §187.81, concerning Reports on Imposition of Administrative Penalty. The amendment to <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">§187.27</span></strong> <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">corrects an incorrect citation</span></strong>. The amendment to §187.81 requires that <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">disciplinary orders that impose administrative penalties related to the delivery of health care services must be reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank</span></strong>.</p>
<p> (I have a big problem with this.  A fine should not be reported to the NPDB.  Fines are given out like candy at the Board and usually the licensees are ok with a fine if this matter is not given to the NPDB.  This change is really going to make settling cases more difficult than they already are.) </p>
<p>Proposed Rules Disciplinary Guidelines – Violation Guidelines &#8211; The Texas Medical Board (Board) proposes amendments to §190.8, concerning Violation Guidelines. The</p>
<p>amendment to<strong><span style="text-decoration: underline"> §190.8</span></strong> provides that (1) <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">a physician-patient relationship is not necessary when a physician prescribes medications to a patient&#8217;s family members if the patient has an illness determined to be pandemic</span></strong>; and (2) <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">unprofessional conduct includes contacting a member of a peer review body for purposes of intimidation in relation to a board investigation.</span></strong></p>
<p>Proposed Rules Standing Delegation Orders – Delegation of the Carrying out or Signing of Prescription Drug Orders to Physician Assistants and Advanced Practice Nurses The Texas Medical Board (Board) proposes amendments to §193.6, concerning Delegation of the Carrying Out or Signing of Prescription Drug Orders to Physician Assistants and Advanced Practice Nurses. The amendment to <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">§193.6</span></strong> <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline">clarifies that certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) who only sign or carry out prescription drug orders are not required to register with the Board.</span></strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong>Withdrawn Rule Telemedicine &#8211; The Texas Medical Board withdraws the proposed amendment to §174.2 and new §§174.7, 174.9, and 174.11 which appeared in the April 30, 2010, issue of the Texas Register (35 TexReg 3390) <strong>35 TexReg 6283</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.healthlicensedefense.com/b/2010/07/more-rule-changes-proposed-by-the-texas-medical-board/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trial of Winkler County Nurse who reported Doctor to Texas Medical Board-Part 1</title>
		<link>http://www.healthlicensedefense.com/b/2010/02/trial-of-winkler-county-nurse-who-reported-doctor-to-texas-medical-board-part-1/</link>
		<comments>http://www.healthlicensedefense.com/b/2010/02/trial-of-winkler-county-nurse-who-reported-doctor-to-texas-medical-board-part-1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:50:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Taralynn Mackay</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Doctors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nurses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disruptive physician]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medical Records]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nursing jurisprudence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Texas Medical Board]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Texas medical license]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TMB]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[whistle blower]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.healthlicensedefense.com/b/?p=74</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The trial began on February 8, 2010 with jury selection.  Prior to the trial, one of the two nurses, Vicki Galle,  originally indicted was dismissed from the case.  Anne Mitchell&#8217;s trial involves felony charges for mis-using private, patient files to harass the County hospital&#8217;s doctor.  On February 9, 2010, testimony began in the trial.   The [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The trial began on February 8, 2010 with jury selection.  Prior to the trial, one of the two nurses, Vicki Galle,  originally indicted was dismissed from the case.  Anne Mitchell&#8217;s trial involves felony charges for mis-using private, patient files to harass the County hospital&#8217;s doctor.  On February 9, 2010, testimony began in the trial.   The IT person testified and then Dr. Arafiles testified.<span style="color: black"><span style="font-size: x-small"><span style="font-family: arial"> The allegations of his poor care were discussed and Dr. Arafiles actually testified that he did not think there was a difference in the way diabetic patients healed compared to non-diabetics.  It was also pointed out that the Sheriff is a friend of Dr. Arafiles and a business associate as well.  For news articles see: <a class="wp-caption" title="CBS7" href="http://www.cbs7kosa.com/news/details.asp?ID=17843" target="_blank">CBS7</a> and the <a class="wp-caption" title="New York Times" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/opinion/10wed3.html" target="_blank">New York Times</a>. </span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black"><span style="font-size: x-small"><span style="font-family: arial">Personal take:  The fact that these nurses were ever charged with anything is not justice.  The actions taken by the Sheriff and the DA reek of &#8220;good ol&#8217; boy&#8221; tactics.  This case should be thrown out and the &#8220;officials&#8221; involved investigated for misuse of official power.  The &#8220;system&#8221; only works if all involved believe in it&#8211;that it is fair and that the people in power have no personal agendas for their actions and are acting based on the best for the public.  For a Sheriff and DA to go after whistle blowers is an affront to their job of protecting the public.<br />
</span></span></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.healthlicensedefense.com/b/2010/02/trial-of-winkler-county-nurse-who-reported-doctor-to-texas-medical-board-part-1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>End of Life Care</title>
		<link>http://www.healthlicensedefense.com/b/2009/11/end-of-life-care/</link>
		<comments>http://www.healthlicensedefense.com/b/2009/11/end-of-life-care/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:34:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon Porter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Doctors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nurses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[End of Life Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medical Records]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NPR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[physician-patient relationship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Texas Medical Board Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TMB attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TMB lawyer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.healthlicensedefense.com/b/?p=55</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am an admitted NPR fan.  A day without Morning Edition or All Things Considered is a bad day, disconnected with the world around me.  On Monday, All Things Considered did an amazing story regarding end of life care and how the city of La Crosse, Wisconsin worked developing dialogue with patients regarding treatment opinions [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am an admitted NPR fan.  A day without <em>Morning Edition</em> or <em>All Things Considered</em> is a bad day, disconnected with the world around me.  On Monday, <em>All Things Considered</em> did an amazing story regarding end of life care and how the city of La Crosse, Wisconsin worked developing dialogue with patients regarding treatment opinions at the end of life.  An impressive story on how communication with patients, gives them control over their care and how doctors and allied health care professionals are able to help patients die in peace in accordance to their wishes.  These informed choices help with patients, families and saves money.  This is a story completely worth listening to. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120346411">http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120346411</a></p>
<p> I point of the story in relation to what I do is with regard to open and frank communication with patients, documenting both the education and the decisions made, and following through; with the knowledge that patients do change their minds, so the dialogue and the documentation must evolve with the patient.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.healthlicensedefense.com/b/2009/11/end-of-life-care/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Texas Medical Board &amp; Treatment of Chronic Pain</title>
		<link>http://www.healthlicensedefense.com/b/2009/11/texas-medical-board-treatment-of-chronic-pain/</link>
		<comments>http://www.healthlicensedefense.com/b/2009/11/texas-medical-board-treatment-of-chronic-pain/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:58:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon Porter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Doctors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chronic Pain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medical Records]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[physician-patient relationship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Texas Medical Board]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Texas Medical Board Attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TMB]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TMB attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TMB lawyer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.healthlicensedefense.com/b/?p=43</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Board rule 170.3 basically provides a step-by-step guideline on how to document the treatment of pain.  The key to documenting the treatment of pain is to describe one’s legitimate medical purpose for the treatment of pain, based “upon accepted scientific knowledge of the treatment of pain.”  The Board basically wants one to follow five (5) [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Board rule 170.3 basically provides a step-by-step guideline on how to document the treatment of pain.  The key to documenting the treatment of pain is to describe one’s legitimate medical purpose for the treatment of pain, based “upon accepted scientific knowledge of the treatment of pain.”  The Board basically wants one to follow five (5) steps documentation steps:</p>
<p>1.         A documented medical history and physical examination, including an assessment and consideration of the pain, physical and psychological function, any history and potential for substance abuse, coexisting diseases and conditions, and the presence of a recognized medical indication for the use of a dangerous drug or controlled substance.</p>
<p>In my experience included in this history and examination, the physician should review and have copies of all prior treatment records.  You need to have a documented pain scale.  In some cases, a psychological evaluation is warranted and should be a common treatment tool.  A written inquiry to local pharmacies and documenting this investigation is good protection if you are not sure.  The physician should exhaust non-controlled substance options first:  steroids, PT, OMT, and the like.  If the patient has immediately rejects this notion, you need to ask why?  What have the other physicians said and why?  What were the past treatment options for the patient, and were they followed?  If so, what were the results? If not, why not?</p>
<p>2.         A written treatment plan individually tailored to the patient that can objectively measure results, including but not limited to pain relief and/or improved physical and psychosocial function.  This treatment plan must consider pertinent medical history and physical examination as well as the need for further testing, consultations, referrals, or use of other treatment modalities.  This treatment plan should have both objective and subjective treatment goals. </p>
<p>Part of this individualized treatment plan should be a pain contract.  Within this contact, the patient must agree that you will be the only physician to prescribe pain medications except in emergency situations, defined to mean only hospitalizations.  That the patient agrees to fill prescriptions at only one specific pharmacy of their choosing, agreed upon by the physician.  That lost medications or medications taken before the refill period will not be replaced but for emergency situations.  That if the physician makes a referral to other physician or for a diagnostic study, the patient must do so.  Failure to follow these guidelines will result in the physician firing the patient with 30 days notice a referral to three or more physicians, or refer them to insurance provider </p>
<p>A normal check up schedule should be followed, with appropriate physical examinations and diagnostic studies.  All consultant reports, labs and studies must be included within the patient record.  Occasional inquiries to the designated pharmacy and to others in town should be done to ensure compliance with the contract.</p>
<p> 3.        The physician should discuss the risks and benefits of the use of controlled substances with the patient or guardian. </p>
<p>This must be well documented in the medical record.  A statement of “patient educated” is not enough.  If the patient or family members have questions, answer the questions, and attempt to document the general tone and response to the questions.  It is even better to follow-up on such a Q &amp;A session with a letter to the patient and/or family regarding these issues.  The letter must be included in the medical record.   At this counseling session, basic written information should also be provided.  Even if should action is basic protocol for your office, I would recommend this be also included in the medical record.</p>
<p>4.   The progress of the patient should be noted at reasonable (regular) intervals to evaluate the treatment objectives.  As the subjective and objective progress or regress of the patient should be evaluated and the individualized treatment pain can and could be modified, including any new information about the etiology of the pain.</p>
<p>As noted before, the patient should be seen a regular intervals.  I would recommend on a thirty day cycle.  This will allow you to control the prescriptions and not have to rely on refills.  It controls access to the medications all the while allowing you to see the month to month status of the patient. </p>
<p>5.         Complete and accurate records of the care provided must be kept.  When controlled substances are prescribed, names, quantities prescribed, dosages, and number of authorized refills of the drugs should be recorded, keeping in mind that pain patients with a history of substance abuse or who live in an environment posing a risk for medication misuse or diversion require special consideration. </p>
<p>This can become a record keeping nightmare.  A good method to comply with this provision is to photocopy the prescriptions and place it in the medical record itself.  For patients at higher risk for substance or possible diversion, document whatever safe guards utilized to continue to have the controlled substances are used for the legitimate medical purpose.  This includes counseling, charting by the patient, drug screens, and the like. Again, the key is to document.</p>
<p>This is merely a brief outline.  It is critical to review Board rule 170.  If you plan to work in the area of chronic pain, review the rules often, consult with an expert on your documentation, and take annual CME in this area.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.healthlicensedefense.com/b/2009/11/texas-medical-board-treatment-of-chronic-pain/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>8th GRADE MATH</title>
		<link>http://www.healthlicensedefense.com/b/2009/10/8th-grade-math/</link>
		<comments>http://www.healthlicensedefense.com/b/2009/10/8th-grade-math/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:33:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jon Porter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Doctors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medical Records]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TMB]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.healthlicensedefense.com/b/?p=15</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[More and more I am seeing both TMB experts and Board members and staff arguing that a doctor’s medical records are deficit because the records fail to provide expressed justification or rationale for medical treatments, labs, consults and testing.
TMB is demanding that doctors justify what you are doing.  Your medicine may be right, but if [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>More and more I am seeing both TMB experts and Board members and staff arguing that a doctor’s medical records are deficit because the records fail to provide expressed justification or rationale for medical treatments, labs, consults and testing.</p>
<p>TMB is demanding that doctors justify what you are doing.  Your medicine may be right, but if you don’t show the “why” some Board consultants, members and staff will find your records are deficient.  I liken this to Eight Grade math.  Take  144  ÷  12 , you know it’s 12.  Well in Eight Grade math, the teacher would mark you wrong because you didn’t show your work.  If you have written</p>
<p>12</p>
<p>12 /    144</p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline">144 </span></p>
<p>0</p>
<p>That would be right because you showed your work.  Think about this with your medical records.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.healthlicensedefense.com/b/2009/10/8th-grade-math/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
