Using the computer in the clinical consultation; setting the stage, reviewing, recording, and taking actions: Multi-channel video study

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Volumn 20, Issue E1, 2013, Pages

  Kumarapeli, Pushpa ^a   De Lusignan, Simon ^b  

^a KINGSTON UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SURREY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPUTER; CONSULTATION; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; FEMALE; GAZE; GENERAL PRACTICE; HUMAN; INTROSPECTION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; POSITION; PRESCRIPTION; READING; AMBULATORY CARE; BIOENGINEERING; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; MANAGEMENT; MEDICAL RECORDS SYSTEM; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVATION; PATIENT REFERRAL; PROCESS ASSESSMENT; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; TASK PERFORMANCE; THEORETICAL MODEL; UTILIZATION REVIEW; VIDEORECORDING;

INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; MEDICAL RECORDS SYSTEM; MODEL, THEORETICAL; OBSERVATION; PROCESS ASSESSMENT; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION;

ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; HUMAN ENGINEERING; HUMANS; MEDICAL RECORDS SYSTEMS, COMPUTERIZED; OFFICE MANAGEMENT; OFFICE VISITS; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; VIDEO RECORDING;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84881327454     PISSN: 10675027     EISSN: 1527974X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001081     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. de Lusignan S, Chan T. The development of primary care information technology in the United Kingdom. J Ambul Care Manag 2008;31:201.
2. Kurtz S, Silverman J, Benson J, et al. Marrying content and process in clinical method teaching: enhancing the Calgary-Cambridge guides. Acad Med 2003;78:802-9.
3. de Lusignan S, Wells S, Russell C. A model for patient-centred nurse consulting in primary care. Br J Nurs 2003;12:85-90.
4. Pearce C, Dwan K, Arnold M, et al. Doctor, patient and computer-a framework for the new consultation. Int J Med Inform 2009;78:32-8.
5. Ash JS, Bates DW. Factors and forces affecting EHR system adoption report of a 2004 ACMI discussion. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005;12:8-12.
6. Schade CP, Sullivan FM, de Lusignan S, et al. e-Prescribing, efficiency, quality: lessons from the computerization of UK family practice. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006;13:470-5.
7. Pearce C. The adoption of computers in Australian General Practice. Healthcare Information Management and Systems Society Asia-Pacific conference. Hong Kong: Healthcare Information Management and Systems Society, 2006.
8. Sullivan F, Wyatt JC. How computers can help to share understanding with patients. BMJ 2005;331:892-4.
9. Ash JS, Bates DW. Factors and forces affecting EHR system adoption report of a 2004 ACMI discussion. JAMIA 2005;12:8-12.
10. Morris CJ, Savelyich BSP, Avery AJ, et al. Patient safety features of clinical computer systems: questionnaire survey of GP views. Qual Saf Health Care 2005;14:164-8.
11. Fernando B, Savelyich BSP, Avery AJ, et al. Prescribing safety features of general practice computer systems: evaluation using simulated test cases. BMJ 2004;328:1171-2.
12. Petri A, de Lusignan S, Williams J, et al. Management of cardiovascular risk factors in people with diabetes in primary care: cross-sectional study. Public Health 2006;120:654-63.
13. Silverman J, Kinnersley P. Doctors' non-verbal behaviour in consultations: look at the patient before you look at the computer. Br J Gen Pract 2010;60:76-8.
14. Hoerbst A, Kohl CD, Knaup P, et al. Attitudes and behaviors related to the introduction of electronic health records among Austrian and German citizens. Int J Med Inform 2010;79:81-9.
15. Campbell EM, Sittig DF, Ash JS, et al. Types of unintended consequences related to computerized provider order entry. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006;13:547-56.
16. Ash JS, Sittig DF, Dykstra RH, et al. Categorizing the unintended sociotechnical consequences of computerized provider order entry. Int J Med Inform 2007;76 (Suppl 1):21-7.
17. Pearce CM, Trumble S. Computers can't listen-algorithmic logic meets patient centredness. Aust Fam Physician 2006;35:439-42.
18. Western M, Dwan K, Makkai T, et al. Measuring IT use in General Practice. Brisbane: University of Queensland, 2001.
19. Rhodes P, Small N, Rowley E, et al. Electronic medical records in diabetes consultations: participants' gaze as an interactional resource. Qual Health Res 2008;18:1247-63.
20. Booth N, Robinson P, Kohannejad J. Identification of high-quality consultation practice in primary care: the effects of computer use on doctor-patient rapport. Inform Prim Care 2004;12:75-83.
21. Pearce C, Trumble S, Arnold M, et al. Computers in the new consultation: within the first minute. Fam Pract 2008;25:202-8.
22. Theodom A, de Lusignan S, Wilson E, et al. Using three-channel video to evaluate the impact of the use of the computer on the patient-centredness of the general practice consultation. Inform Prim Care 2003;11:149-56.
23. Avery AJ, Savelyich BS, Sheikh A, et al. Improving general practice computer systems for patient safety: qualitative study of key stakeholders. Qual Saf Health Care 2007;16:28-33.
24. Magrabi F, Westbrook JI, Coiera EW. What factors are associated with the integration of evidence retrieval technology into routine general practice settings? Int J Med Inform 2007;76:701-9.
25. Shachak A, Reis S. The impact of electronic medical records on patient-doctor communication during consultation: a narrative literature review. Int J Med Inform 2009;15:641-9.
26. Gorman P, Lavelle M, Ash J. Order creation and communication in healthcare. Methods Infom Med 2003;42:376-84.
27. Spencer R, Coiera E, Logan P. Variation in communication loads on clinical staff in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 2004;44:268-73.
28. Westbrook JI, Duffield C, Li L, et al. How much time do nurses have for patients? A longitudinal study of hospital nurses' patterns of task time distribution and interactions with other health professionals. BMC Health Serv Res 2011;11:319.
29. Holden R, Scanlon M, Patel R, et al. A human factors framework and study of the effect of nursing workload on patient safety and employee quality of working life. BMJ Qual Saf 2011;20:15-24.
30. Westbrook J, Ampt A. Design, application and testing of the Work Observation Method by Activity Timing (WOMBAT) to measure clinicians' patterns of work and communication. Int J Med Inform 2009;78S:S25-33.
31. Coiera E. The science of interruption. BMJ Qual Saf 2012;21:357-36.
32. Ross S, Ryan C, Duncan EM, et al. Perceived causes of prescribing errors by junior doctors in hospital inpatients: a study from the PROTECT programme. BMJ Qual Saf 2012;0:1-6.
33. Chisholm CD, Dornfeld AM, Nelson DR, et al. Work interrupted: a comparison of workplace interruptions in emergency departments and primary care offices. Ann Emerg Med 2001;38:146-51.
34. Westbrook JI, Coiera E, Dunsmuir WT, et al. The impact of interruptions on clinical task completion. Qual Saf Health Care 2010;19:284-9.
35. Grundgeiger T, Sanderson P. Interruptions in healthcare: theoretical views. Int J Med Inf 2009;78:293-307.
36. Westbrook JI, Woods A, Rob M, et al. Association of interruptions with increased risk and severity of medication administration errors. Arch Intern Med 2010;170:683-90.
37. Hitchen L. Frequent interruptions linked to drug errors. BMJ 2008;336:1155.
38. Gravelle H, Sutton M, Ma A. Doctor Behaviour under a Pay for Performance Contract: Treating, Cheating and Case Finding? Econ J 2010;120:129-56.
39. de Lusignan S, Wells SE, Russell C, et al. Development of an assessment tool to measure the influence of clinical software on the delivery of high quality consultations. A study comparing two computerized medical record systems in a nurse run heart clinic in a general practice setting. Med Inform Internet Med 2002;27:267-80.
40. Leong A, Koczan P, De Lusignan S, et al. A framework for comparing video methods used to assess the clinical consultation: a qualitative study. Med Inform Internet Med 2006;31:255-65.
41. Sheeler I, Koczan P, Wallage W, et al. Low-cost three-channel video for assessment of the clinical consultation. Inform Prim Care 2007;15:25-31.
42. de Lusignan S, Kumarapeli P, Chan T, et al. The ALFA (Activity Log Files Aggregation) toolkit: a method for precise observation of the consultation. J Med Internet Res 2008;10:e27.
43. Pflug B, Kumarapeli P, van Vlymen J, et al. Measuring the impact of the computer on the consultation: an open source application to combine multiple observational outputs. Inform Health Soc Care 2010;35:10-24.
44. Weed LL. Medical records that guide and teach. New Engl J Med 1987;278:593-9 and 278:652-657.
45. de Lusignan S, Pearce C, Kumarapeli P, et al. Reporting Observational Studies of the Use of Information Technology in the Clinical Consultation. A Position Statement from the IMIA Primary Health Care Informatics Working Group (IMIA PCI WG). Yearb Med Inform 2011;6:39-47.
46. Refsum C, Kumarapeli P, Gunaratne A, et al. Measuring the impact of different brands of computer systems on the clinical consultation: a pilot study. Inform Prim Care 2008;16:119-27.
47. Tai TW, Anandarajah S, Dhoul N, et al. Variation in clinical coding lists in UK general practice: a barrier to consistent data entry? Inform Prim Care 2007;15:143-50.
48. Scott D, Purves I. Triadic relationship between doctor, computer and patient. Interacting with Computers 1996;8:347-63.
49. Pearce C, Kumarpeli P, de Lusignan S. Getting seamless care right from the beginning- integrating computers into the human interaction. Stud Health Technol Inform 2010;155:196-202.
50. Moulene MV, de Lusignan S, Freeman G, et al. Assessing the impact of recording quality target data on the GP consultation using multi-channel video. Stud Health Technol Inform 2007;129(Pt 2):1132-6.
51. Field A. Discover statistics using SPSS. London: Sage, 2009.
52. Ventres W, Kooienga S, Vuckovic N. Physicians, patients, and the electronic health record: an ethnographic analysis. Ann Fam Med 2006;4:124-31.
53. Krause P, de Lusignan S. Procuring Interoperability at the expense of usability: a case study of UK National Programme for IT assurance process. Stud Health Technol Inform 2010;155:143-9.
54. Alsos OA, Das A, Svanaes D. Mobile health IT: the effect of user interface and form factor on doctor-patient communication. Int J Med Inform 2012;81:12-28.
55. Fiks AG, Alessandrini EA, Forrest CB, et al. Electronic medical record use in pediatric primary care. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011;18:38-44.
56. Pearce C, Arnold M, Phillips CB, et al. The many faces of the computer: An analysis of clinical software in the primary care consultation. Int J Med Inform 2012;81:475-84.
57. Gibson M, Jenkings KN, Wilson R, et al. Multi-tasking in practice: coordinated activities in the computer supported doctor-patient consultation. Int J Med Inform 2005;74:425-36.
58. Cimino JJ, Patel VL, Kushniruk AW. Studying the human-computer-terminology interface, J Am Med Inform Assoc 2001;8:163-73.
59. Foy R, Hawthorne G, Gibb I, et al. A cluster randomised controlled trial of educational prompts in diabetes care: study protocol. Implementation Sci 2007;2:22.
60. Yu D, Seger D, Lasser K, et al. Impact of implementing alerts about medication black-box warnings in electronic health records. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2010;20:192-202.
61. Makoul G. The SEGUE Framework for teaching and assessing communication skills. Patient Educ Couns 2001;45:23-34.
62. Thomson F, Milne H, Hayward J, et al. Understanding the impact of information technology on interactions between patients and healthcare professionals: the INTERACT-IT study. Health Serv J 2012;(Suppl):P46. special supplement.
63. Reddy M, Pratt W, Dourish P, et al. Sociotechnical requirements analysis for clinical systems. Methods Inf Med 2003;42:437-44.
64. Beasley JW, Wetterneck TB, Temte J, et al. Information chaos in primary care: implications for physician performancje and patient safety. J Am Board Fam Med 2011;24:745-51.