Outcome scores collected by touchscreen: Medical audit as it should be in the 21st century?

Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England

Volumn 89, Issue 7, 2007, Pages 689-691

  Dixon, Sean ^a   Bunker, Timothy ^b   Chan, Daniel ^b  

^a ROYAL CORNWALL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b Royal Deom and Exeter Hospital   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Audit; Computers; Outcomes Assessment

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEASIBILITY STUDY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL AUDIT; MICROCOMPUTER; ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OUTPATIENT DEPARTMENT; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PERSONAL EXPERIENCE; QUESTIONNAIRE; SCORING SYSTEM;

AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COMPUTER PERIPHERALS; ENGLAND; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; HUMANS; MEDICAL AUDIT; MIDDLE AGED; PROGNOSIS; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 35348858198     PISSN: 00358843     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1308/003588407X205422     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O'Brien JP. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 1980; 66: 271-3.
2. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996; 78: 593-600.
3. Hewlett SA. Patients and clinicians have different perspectives on outcomes in arthritis. J Rheumatol 2003; 30: 877-9.
4. Rothwell PM, McDowell Z, Wong CK, Dorman PJ. Doctors and patients don't agree: cross sectional study of patients' and doctors' perceptions and assessments of disability in multiple sclerosis. BMJ 1997; 314: 1580.
5. Dawson J, Hill G, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A. The benefits of using patient-based methods of assessment. Medium-term results of an observational study of shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2001; 83: 877-82.
6. Wilson AS, Kitas GD, Carruthers DM, Reay C, Skan J, Harris S et al. Computerized information-gathering in specialist rheumatology clinics: an initial evaluation of an electronic version of the Short Form 36. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2002; 41: 268-73.
7. Ryan JM, Corry JR, Attewell R, Smithson MJ. A comparison of an electronic version of the SF-36 General Health Questionnaire to the standard paper version. Qual Life Res 2002; 11: 19-26.
8. Theiler R, Spielberger J, Bischoff HA, Bellamy N, Huber J, Kroesen S. Clinical evaluation of the WOMAC 3.0 OA Index in numeric rating scale format using a computerized touch screen version. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2002; 10: 479-81.
9. Schaeren S, Knupp M, Dick W, Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Huber JF, Theiler R. A computer touch-screen version of the North American Spine Society outcome assessment instrument for the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87: 201-4.
10. Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Vondechend M, Bellamy N, Theiler R. Validation and patient acceptance of a computer touch screen version of the WOMAC 3.1 osteoarthritis index. Ann Rheum Dis 2005; 64: 80-4.
11. Buxton J, White M, Osoba D. Patients' experiences using a computerized program with a touch-sensitive video monitor for the assessment of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 513-9.