Dataset Information

The electronic patient record in primary care--regression or progression? A cross sectional study.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: To determine whether paperless medical records contained less information than paper based medical records and whether that information was harder to retrieve. DESIGN: Cross sectional study with review of medical records and interviews with general practitioners. SETTING: 25 general practices in Trent region. PARTICIPANTS: 53 British general practitioners (25 using paperless records and 28 using paper based records) who each provided records of 10 consultations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Content of a sample of records and doctor recall of consultations for which paperless or paper based records had been made. RESULTS: Compared with paper based records, more paperless records were fully understandable (89.2% v 69.9%, P=0.0001) and fully legible (100% v 64.3%, P < 0.0001). Paperless records were significantly more likely to have at least one diagnosis recorded (48.2% v 33.2%, P=0.05), to record that advice had been given (23.7% vs 10.7%, P=0.017), and, when a referral had been made, were more likely to contain details of the specialty (77.4% v 59.5%, P=0.03). When a prescription had been issued, paperless records were more likely to specify the drug dose (86.6% v 66.2%, P=0.005). Paperless records contained significantly more words, abbreviations, and symbols (P < 0.01 for all). At doctor interview, there was no difference between the groups for the proportion of patients or consultations that could be recalled. Doctors using paperless records were able to recall more advice given to patients (38.6% v 26.8%, P=0.03). CONCLUSION: We found no evidence to support our hypotheses that paperless records would be truncated and contain more local abbreviations; and that the absence of writing would decrease subsequent recall. Conversely we found that the paperless records compared favourably with manual records.

SUBMITTER: Hippisley-Cox J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC162256 | biostudies-literature | 2003 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The electronic patient record in primary care--regression or progression? A cross sectional study.

Hippisley-Cox Julia J Pringle Mike M Cater Ruth R Wynn Alison A Hammersley Vicky V Coupland Carol C Hapgood Rhydian R Horsfield Peter P Teasdale Sheila S Johnson Christine C

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20030601 7404

<h4>Objectives</h4>To determine whether paperless medical records contained less information than paper based medical records and whether that information was harder to retrieve.<h4>Design</h4>Cross sectional study with review of medical records and interviews with general practitioners.<h4>Setting</h4>25 general practices in Trent region.<h4>Participants</h4>53 British general practitioners (25 using paperless records and 28 using paper based records) who each provided records of 10 consultatio ...[more]

PMID: 12829558

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOlder adults are increasingly accessing information and communicating using patient-facing portals available through their providers' electronic health record (EHR). Most theories of technology acceptance and use suggest that patients' overall satisfaction with care should be independent of their chosen level of portal engagement. However, achieving expected benefits of portal use depends on demonstrated support from providers to meet these expectations. This is especially true among older adults, who may require more guidance. However, little is known about whether misalignment of expectations around technology-facilitated care is associated with lower perceptions of care quality.ObjectiveThe aims of this study were to analyze whether older adults' assessment of primary care quality differs across levels of patient portal engagement and whether perceptions of how well their provider uses the EHR to support care moderates this relationship.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey analysis of 158 older adults over the age of 65 (average age 71.4 years) across Michigan using a 13-measure composite of self-assessed health care quality. Portal use was categorized as none, moderate (use of 1-3 functionalities), or extensive (use of 4-7 functionalities). EHR value perception was measured by asking respondents how they felt their doctor's EHR use improved the patient-provider relationship.ResultsModerate portal users, compared to those who were extensive users, had lower estimated care quality (-0.214 on 4-point scale; P=.03). Differences between extensive portal users and nonportal users were not significant. Quality perception was only particularly low among moderate portal users with low EHR value perception; those with high EHR value perception rated quality similarly to other portal user groups.ConclusionsOlder adults who are moderate portal users are the least satisfied with their care, and the most sensitive to perceptions of how well their provider uses the EHR to support the relationship. Encouraging portal use without compromising perceptions of quality requires thinking beyond patient-focused education. Achieving value from use of patient-facing technologies with older adults is contingent upon matched organizational investments that support technology-enabled care delivery. Providers and staff need policies and practices that demonstrate technology adeptness. Older adults may need more tailored signaling and accommodation for technology to be maximally impactful.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Public Private Interface-Electronic Patient Record (PPI-ePR) system was implemented as a new electronic platform to facilitate collaboration between the public and private sectors in Hong Kong. However, its barriers to participate and benefits have not been comprehensively assessed. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to evaluate the awareness, acceptance, perceived benefits, and obstacles to participation among private doctors and the general public. METHODS:From December 2012 to January 2013, 2435 telephone interviews were performed by trained interviewers to survey randomly selected patients who were enrolled or not enrolled in the PPI-ePR system. In addition, self-administered surveys were sent by postal mail to 4229 registered doctors in Hong Kong. The questionnaires for both patients and doctors contained questions on subjects' awareness, acceptance, and perceptions of the PPI-ePR, perceived benefits and obstacles of participating in the program, reasons for not using the system after enrolling, and perceived areas for service improvement of the system. RESULTS:More than 53.1% (266/501) of enrolled patients believed that the PPI-ePR system would improve health care quality by reducing duplicate tests and treatments, while more than 76.8% (314/409) of enrolled doctors emphasized timely access to patients' medical records as the biggest benefit of their enrollment. Among nonenrolled patients, unawareness of the project was the most popular obstacle to enrolling in the PPI-ePR system (483/1200, 40.3%). Regarding nonenrolled doctors, the complicated registration process hindered them from participating in the program the most (95/198, 48.0%). Television, newspaper, and magazine advertisements and medical profession newsletters or journals were suggested as the most effective means to encourage participation in the program among surveyed patients (1297/1701, 76.2%) and doctors (428/610, 70.2%), respectively. Lack of clinical indication requiring data extraction from other hospitals was the main reason for low level of PPI-ePR use. CONCLUSIONS:This study comprehensively assessed the popularity, perceived benefits, and hindering factors of enrolling in the PPI-ePR system in Hong Kong. Low levels of awareness, few privacy concerns, and inactive use of the PPI-ePR system were among the key features for patients and physicians. Public promotions, simplified logistics, and a user-friendly online interface were suggested to improve the coverage and effectiveness of health information exchange between private and public health care sectors.

Project description:IntroductionThe extent of preventable medication-related hospital admissions and medication-related issues in primary care is significant enough to justify developing decision support systems for medication safety surveillance. The prerequisite for such systems is defining a relevant set of medication safety-related indicators and understanding the influence of both patient and general practice characteristics on medication prescribing and monitoring.ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to investigate the feasibility of linked primary and secondary care electronic health record data for surveillance of medication safety, examining not only prescribing but also monitoring, and associations with patient- and general practice-level characteristics.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted using linked records of patients served by one hospital and over 50 general practices in Salford, UK. Statistical analysis consisted of mixed-effects logistic models, relating prescribing safety indicators to potential determinants.ResultsThe overall prevalence (proportion of patients with at least one medication safety hazard) was 5.45 % for prescribing indicators and 7.65 % for monitoring indicators. Older patients and those on multiple medications were at higher risk of prescribing hazards, but at lower risk of missed monitoring. The odds of missed monitoring among all patients were 25 % less for males, 50 % less for patients in practices that provide general practitioner training, and threefold higher in practices serving the most deprived compared with the least deprived areas. Practices with more prescribing hazards did not tend to show more monitoring issues.ConclusionsSystematic collection, collation, and analysis of linked primary and secondary care records produce plausible and useful information about medication safety for a health system. Medication safety surveillance systems should pay close attention to patient age and polypharmacy with respect to both prescribing and monitoring failures; treat prescribing and monitoring as different statistical processes, rather than a combined measure of prescribing safety; and audit the socio-economic equity of missed monitoring.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The quality of patient-physician discussions about chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care has not been studied previously. STUDY DESIGN:Cross-sectional study. SETTINGS & PARTICIPANTS:We audiotaped encounters between 236 patients with hypertension and their primary care physicians (n = 40). PREDICTORS:Patient, physician, and encounter characteristics. OUTCOMES & MEASUREMENTS:We described the occurrence and characteristics (content, use of technical terms, and physician assessment of patient comprehension of new concepts) of CKD discussions. We assessed patient and physician characteristics associated with CKD discussion occurrence. RESULTS:Many patients (mean age, 59 years) had uncontrolled hypertension (51%), diabetes (44%), and/or 3 or more comorbid conditions (51%). Most primary care physicians practiced (52%) fewer than 10 years. CKD discussions occurred in few (26%; n = 61) encounters, with content focused on laboratory assessment (89%), risk-factor treatment (28%), and causes (26%) of CKD. In encounters that included a CKD discussion, physicians used technical terms (28%; n = 17) and rarely assessed patients' comprehension (2%; n = 1). CKD discussions were statistically significantly less common in visits of patients with some (vs no) college education (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.09-0.56), with 3 or more (vs fewer) comorbid conditions (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.25-0.96), and who saw physicians with more (vs fewer) than 10 years of practice experience (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21-0.80). CKD discussions were more common during longer encounters (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.04-1.65) and encounters in which diabetes was (vs was not) discussed (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.22-6.77). LIMITATIONS:Generalizability of our findings may be limited. CONCLUSIONS:Patient-physician discussions about CKD in high-risk primary care patients were infrequent. Physicians used technical terms and infrequently assessed patients' understanding of new CKD concepts. Efforts to improve the frequency and content of patient-physician CKD discussions in primary care could improve patients' clinical outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundThe rapid expansion in the use of electronic health records (EHR) has increased the number of medical errors originating in health information systems (HIS). The sociotechnical approach helps in understanding risks in the development, implementation, and use of EHR and health information technology (HIT) while accounting for complex interactions of technology within the health care system.ObjectiveThis study addresses two important questions: (1) "which of the common EHR error types are associated with perceived high- and extreme-risk severity ratings among EHR users?", and (2) "which variables are associated with high- and extreme-risk severity ratings?"MethodsThis study was a quantitative, non-experimental, descriptive study of EHR users. We conducted a cross-sectional web-based questionnaire study at the largest hospital district in Finland. Statistical tests included the reliability of the summative scales tested with Cronbach's alpha. Logistic regression served to assess the association of the independent variables to each of the eight risk factors examined.ResultsA total of 2864 eligible respondents provided the final data. Almost half of the respondents reported a high level of risk related to the error type "extended EHR unavailability". The lowest overall risk level was associated with "selecting incorrectly from a list of items". In multivariate analyses, profession and clinical unit proved to be the strongest predictors for high perceived risk. Physicians perceived risk levels to be the highest ( P<.001 in six of eight error types), while emergency departments, operating rooms, and procedure units were associated with higher perceived risk levels ( P<.001 in four of eight error types). Previous participation in eLearning courses on EHR-use was associated with lower risk for some of the risk factors.ConclusionsBased on a large number of Finnish EHR users in hospitals, this study indicates that HIT safety hazards should be taken very seriously, particularly in operating rooms, procedure units, emergency departments, and intensive care units/critical care units. Health care organizations should use proactive and systematic assessments of EHR risks before harmful events occur. An EHR training program should be compulsory for all EHR users in order to address EHR safety concerns resulting from the failure to use HIT appropriately.

Dataset Information

The electronic patient record in primary care--regression or progression? A cross sectional study.

Publications

The electronic patient record in primary care--regression or progression? A cross sectional study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets