Why clinical information standards matter

British Medical Journal

Volumn 326, Issue 7399, 2003, Pages 1101-1102

  Gardner, Martin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CODING; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; EDITORIAL; EVALUATION; GENERAL PRACTICE; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; HUMAN; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STANDARD; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 0037563095     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.326.7399.1101     Document Type: Editorial

References (11)

1. Brown PJB. Warmington V, Laurence M, Prevost AT. Randomised crossover trial comparing the performance of Clinical Terms Version 3 and Read Codes 5 byte set coding schemes in general practice. BMJ 2003;326:1127-30.
2. Gray J, Orr D, Majeed A. Use of Read codes in diabetes management in a south London primary care group: implications for establishing disease registers. BMJ 2003;326:1130-2.
3. Dolin RH, Alschuler L, Beebe C, Biron PV, Boyer SL, Essin D, et al. The HL7 Clinical Document Architecture. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2001;8:552-69.
4. Gardner M, Peachey T. A standard XML schema for computerised anaesthetic records. Anaesthesia 2002:57:1174-82.
5. Woolman PS. XML for electronic clinical communications in Scotland. Int J Med Inf 2001;64:379-83.
6. World Health Organization, www.who.int/whosis/icd10/
7. Cen/TC 251, www.centc251.org/
8. OpenGALEN, www.opengalen.org/
9. Health Level Seven, www.h17.org/
10. SNOMED Clinical Terms, www.nhsia.nhs.uk/snomed/pages/default.asp
11. Department of Health. Delivering 21st century IT support for the NHS. London: DoH, 2002.