Despite years of work, no re-usable clinical terminology has yet been demonstrated in widespread use. This paper puts forward ten reasons why developing such terminologies is hard. All stem from underestimating the change entailed in using terminology in software for ‘patient centred’ systems rather than for its traditional functions of statistical and financial reporting. Firstly, the increase in scale and complexity are enormous. Secondly, the resulting scale exceeds what can be managed manually with the rigour required by software, but building appropriate rigorous representations on the necessary scale is, in itself, a hard problem. Thirdly, ‘clinical pragmatics’ – practical data entry, presentation and retrieval for clinical tasks – must be taken into account, so that the intrinsic differences between the needs of users and the needs of software are addressed. This implies that validation of clinical terminologies must include validation in use as implemented in software.
Given the many efforts currently under way to develop standards for electronic medical records, it is important to step back and reexamine the fundamental principles which should underlie a model of the electronic medical record. This paper presents an analysis based on the experience in developing the PEN & PAD prototype clinical workstation. The fundamental contention is that the requirements for a medical record must be grounded in its use for patient care. The basic requirement is that it be a faithful record of what clinicians have heard, seen, thought, and done. The other requirements for a medical record, e.g., that it be attributable and permanent, follow naturally from this view. We use the criteria developed to re-examine Weed’s Problem Oriented Medical Record and also relate the criteria to secondary uses of the medical record for population data, communications and decision support.
In the spring of 1998, 16 general practitioners and 16 community psychiatric nurses participated in a study to test a draft set of headings for communicating clinical summaries. Eight anonymized psychiatric discharge summaries were used to assess the impact of the presentational format on the time taken by professionals to read the summaries and to answer a series of standard questions about each of them. Respondents also completed a questionnaire on their opinions of the headings. There was considerable variation between individuals in the times taken to read the summaries and answer the questions, but no evidence that any of the formats was associated with decreased reading time or with improvement in retrieving information. Most respondents preferred information structured using the headings rather than the original semi-structured discharge summaries, and information on paper rather than on computer screen. Respondents were guardedly supportive of the particular draft headings presented. A weak preference was expressed for locally defined headings, with some recognition of advantages in widely agreed headings. There was a view that there were too many headings, and there was overlap between specific heading pairs (for example, ‘aim’ and ‘goal’). Concerns were expressed about specific headings, particularly the ‘softer’ headings, such as ‘informing’ and ‘communicating’.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.