The quality of record keeping in primary care: A comparison of computerised, paper and hybrid systems

British Journal of General Practice

Volumn 53, Issue 497, 2003, Pages 929-933

  Hamilton, William T ^a   Round, Alison P ^b   Sharp, Deborah ^a   Peters, Tim J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^b East Devon Primary Care Trust   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cohort studies; Computerised; Medical records systems; Regression analysis

Indexed keywords

AGE; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER PATIENT; CASE CONTROL STUDY; CLASSIFICATION; CODING; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER SYSTEM; CONSULTATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE SEVERITY; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; GENDER; GENERAL PRACTICE; HOSPITAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; MEDICAL RECORD; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; PATIENT CARE; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; QUALITY CONTROL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SYMPTOM; TELEPHONE;

AGED; ENGLAND; FAMILY PRACTICE; FEMALE; FORMS AND RECORDS CONTROL; HUMANS; MALE; MEDICAL RECORDS; MEDICAL RECORDS SYSTEMS, COMPUTERIZED; MIDDLE AGED; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 0346271620     PISSN: 09601643     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Benson T. Why general practitioners use computers and hospital doctors do not. Part 2: Scalability. BMJ 2002; 325: 1090-1093.
2. Benson T. Why general practitioners use computers and hospital doctors do not. Part 1: Incentives. BMJ 2002; 325: 1086-1089.
3. Hooker RC, Cowap N, Newson R, Freeman GK. Better by half: Hypertension in the elderly and the 'rule of halves': A primary care audit of the clinical computer record as a springboard to improving care. Fam Pract 1999; 16: 123-128.
4. de Lusignan S, Stephens PN, Adal N, Majeed A. Does feedback improve the quality of computerized medical records in primary care? J Am Med Inform Assoc 2002; 9: 395-401.
5. Mikkelsen G, Aasly J. Concordance of information in parallel electronic and paper based patient records. Int J Med Inf 2001; 63: 123-131.
6. Pringle M, Ward P, Chilvers C. Assessment of the completeness and accuracy of computer medical records in four practices committed to recording data on computer. Br J Gen Pract 1995; 45: 537-541.
7. Hogan WR, Wagner MM. Accuracy of data in computer-based patient records. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1997; 4: 342-355
8. Gilliland A, Mills KA, Steele K. General practitioner records on computer - Handle with care. Fam Pract 1992; 9: 441-450.
9. Johnson N, Mant D, Jones L, Randall T. Use of computerised general practice data for population surveillance: Comparative study of influenza data. BMJ 1991; 302: 763-765.
10. The Classification Committee of WONCA. ICPC-2. International Classification of Primary Care. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
11. Siegel S, Castellan N (eds). Nonparametric Systems for the Behavioural Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1988.
12. Evans AR, Absolon PJ, Kaye G, Snow PA. A study of the use of free-text fields within a computer medical records system. Int J Biomed Comput 1985; 17: 155-170.