The barriers to clinical coding in general practice: A literature review

Medical Informatics and the Internet in Medicine

Volumn 30, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 89-97

  De Lusignan, S ^a  

^a ST GEORGE'S UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Data quality; Family practice; Medical records system

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL STUDY; CODING; CONFERENCE PAPER; DATA BASE; GENERAL PRACTICE; HEALTH PRACTITIONER; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; MEDICAL RECORD; PUBLICATION;

FAMILY PRACTICE; FORMS AND RECORDS CONTROL; GREAT BRITAIN; MEDICAL RECORDS SYSTEMS, COMPUTERIZED;

EID: 28944437166     PISSN: 14639238     EISSN: 14645246     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14639230500298651     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (44)

1. Department of Health. Primary Care Computing. Available from: http://www.dh.gov.uk/PolicyAndGuidance/ OrganisationPolicy/PrimaryCare/ PrimaryCareComputing/fs/en (accessed 9 November 2005).
2. Munday E. Data-quality issues plague primary care. British Journal of Healthcare Computing and Information Management 2003;20(3):22-24.
3. Thiru K, Hassey A, Sullivan F. Systematic review of scope and quality of electronic patient records in primary care. British Medical Journal 2003;326(7298):1070-1072.
4. NHS Information Authority. NAPPS (National Accreditation, and Procurement Process Service.) Available from: www.nhsia.nhs.uk/napps/pages/default.asp (accessed 9 November 2005).
5. Sever MP. The clinical terms project. Bulletin of the Royal College of Physicians, London 1993;17(2):9-10.
6. Stearns MQ, Price C, Spackman KA, Wang AY. SNOMED clinical terms: overview of the development process and project status. In: Bakken S, editor. Proceedings of the 2001 AMIA Fall Symposium. Philadelphia, PA: Hanley & Belfus; 2001. p 662-666.
7. Hobbs FDR, Hawker A. Computerised data collection: practicability and quality in selected general practices. Family Practice 1995;12:221-226.
8. Pringle M, Ward P, Chivers C. Assessment of the completeness and accuracy of computer medical records in four practices committed to recording data on computer. British Journal of General Practice 1995;45:537-541.
9. Thiru K, de Lusignan S, Hague N. Have the completeness and accuracy of computer medical records in general practice improved in the last five years? The report of a two-practice pilot study. Health Informatics Journal 1999:5(4);233-239.
10. Hassey A, Gerrett D, Wilson A. A survey of validity and utility of electronic patient records in a general practice. British Medical Journal 2001;322:1401-1405.
11. de Lusignan S, Wells S, Russell C. A model for nurse consultation in the secondary prevention of coronary Heart Disease. British Nursing Journal 2003;12(2):85-90.
12. de Lusignan S, Thiru K Dobson M, Howitt A. Overcoming the constraints to becoming paperless. British Journal of General Practice 2000;50:504.
13. Medical Defence Union. Available (requires membership) from: www.the-mdu.com/gp/search/article.asp? articleID=384&contentType= Advice+article&articleTitle=Defend+or+settle%3F (accessed 9 November 2005).
14. Greenhalgh T, Hurwitz B. Narrative based medicine: why study narrative? British Medical Journal 1999;318(7175):48-50.
15. Greenhalgh T. Narrative based medicine: narrative based medicine in an evidence based world. British Medical Journal 1999;318(7179):323-325.
16. Rector AL. Marking up is not enough. Methods of Information in Medicine 1993;32:272.
17. Kay S, Purves I. The electronic patient record and the 'Story stuff': narrativisitic model. In: Greenhalgh T, Hurwitz B, editors. Narrative based medicine. London: British Medical Journal Books; 1998. p 185-201.
18. Griffiths F, Byrne D. General practice and the new science emerging from the theories of 'chaos' and complexity. British Journal of General Practice 1998;48(435):1697-1699.
19. Liu H, Lussier YA, Friedman C. Disambiguating ambiguous biomedical terms in biomedical narrative text: an unsupervised method. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 2001;34(4):249-261.
20. Lussier YA, Shagina L, Friedman C. Automating SNOMED coding using medical language understanding: a feasibility study. In: Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium; 2001. p 418-422.
21. Hirschman L, Park JC, Tsujii J, Wong L, Wu CH. Accomplishments and challenges in literature data mining for biology. Bioinformatics 2002;18(12):1553-1561.
22. Libbus B, Rindflesch TC. NLP-based information extraction for managing the molecular biology literature. In: Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium; 2002. p 445-449.
23. Halligan A, Donaldson L. Implementing clinical governance: turning vision into reality. British Medical Journal 2001;322(7299):1413-1417.
24. Whitelaw FG, Nevin SL, Milne RM, Taylor RJ, Taylor MW, Watt AH. Completeness and accuracy of morbidity and repeat prescribing records held on general practice computers in Scotland. British Journal of General Practice 1996 Mar;46(404):181-186.
25. Scobie S, Basnett I, McCartney P. Can general practice data be used for needs assessment and health care planning in an inner-London district? Journal of Public Health Medicine 1995;17(4):475-483.
26. de Lusignan S, Dizregah B, Hague N, Chan T, Yates C. Cholesterol management in patients with ischaemic heart disease: an audit-based appraisal of progress towards clinical targets in primary care. British Journal of Cardiology 2003;10:223-228.
27. Hollowell J. The General Practice Research Database: quality of morbidity data. Population Trends 1997;87:36-40.
28. Rector AL. Clinical Terminology: Why is it so hard? Methods of Information in Medicine 1999;38(4-5):239-252.
29. Brown PJB, Odusanya L. Does size matter? - Evaluation of value added content of two decades of successive coding systems in secondary care. In: Bakken S, editor. Proceedings of the 2001 AMIA Fall Symposium. Philadelphia, PA: Hanley and Belfus; 2001. p 71-75.
30. de Lusignan S, Minmagh C, Kennedy C, Zeimet M, Bommezijn H, Bryant J. A survey to identify the clinical coding and classification systems currently in use across the European Community. Medinfo 2001;10(Pt 1):86-89.
31. Brown PJB, Warmington V, Laurence M, Prevost AT. Fandomised crossover trial comparing the performance of Clinical Terms Version 3 and read Codes 5 byte set coding schemes in general practice. British Medical Journal 2003;326(7399):1127.
32. Chute CG, Cohn SP, Campbell KE, Oliver DE, Campbell JR, for the Computer-Based Patient Record Institute's Work Group on Codes and Structures. The content of clinical classifications. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 1996;3:224-233.
33. Cimino JJ, Patel VL, Kushniruk AW. Studying the human-computer- terminology interface. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2001;8:163-173.
34. de Lusignan S, Hague N, Brown A. An educational intervention to improve data quality in CHD. Journal of Public Health 2004;26(1):34-37.
35. Teasdale S. Training, training, training. . . Lessons from the pilot project for the collection of health data from general practice. British Journal of Healthcare Computing and Information Management 1999; 16(9):21-23.
36. Pritchard K, de Lusignan S, Chan T. The confidence and competence of community nurses in using information technology and in accessing clinical evidence through electronic libraries and databases. Informatics in Primary Care 2002;10:245-250.
37. Cape J. Consultation length, patient estimation of consultation length, and satisfaction with the consultation. British Journal of General Practice 2002;52(485):1004-1006.
38. Wilson A, Childs S. The relationship between consultation length, process and outcomes in general practice: a systematic review. British Journal of General Practice 2002;52(485):1012-1020.
39. Theadom A, de Lusignan S, Wilson E, Chan T. Using three-channel video to evaluate the impact of the use of the computer on the patient-centredness of the general practice consultation. Informatics in Primary Care 2003;11(3):149-156.
40. Sellen AJ, Harper RHR. The myth of the paperless office. London: MIT Press, 2002.
41. Heath C, Luff P. Technology in action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
42. de Lusignan S, Wells S, Hague N, Thiru K. Managers see the problems associated with coding clinical data as a technical issue whilst clinicians see both cultural and technical obstacles. Methods of Information in Healthcare 2003;42(4):416-422.
43. de Lusignan S, Stephens PN, Adal N, Majeed A. Does feedback improve the quality of computerized medical records in primary care? Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2002;9(4):395-401.
44. de Lusignan S, Teasdale S. The features of an effective primary care data quality programme. In: Bryant J, editor. Current perspectives in healthcare computing, 2004. Proceedings of HC 2004. Swindon, UK: British Computer Society; 2004. p 95-102.