No abstract

OpenSDE seems to be a promising application for the support of physician data entry in general pediatrics.

Healthcare can be improved by standardization and by evaluation of diagnostic methods and treatments. In the field of andrology, in which large patient numbers are required for the evaluation of diagnostic procedures and treatments, structured data collection and multicentre studies are especially warranted. Concomitant with routine clinical practice, a large amount of clinical data are collected that may be used to evaluate andrological care. Structuring and electronic storage of data holds promise in terms of clarity and accessibility of the data and its use for validation studies. The aim of the present work was to study the merits of routine collection of a common dataset in a computer-based patient record (CPR) for standardization, quality of data and clinical research. It was studied whether the data were of sufficient quality and accessibility for much needed studies on aetiology, interventions and diagnostics in andrology. Data collection in a structured CPR promoted complete and comprehensive data. We describe the advantages, pitfalls and solutions with this approach. Data on the uniform examination of 1549 infertile men became readily accessible. Population characteristics, basal associations and original studies were enabled and provided insight into the efficiency of clinical practice. In 66% of men, a cause for their infertility was identified, which provides a better rationale for treatment than semen parameters alone. For more than 30% of the patients, a rational andrological treatment was available, which could be deployed before assisted reproductive technologies were resorted to. However, most treatments have not been properly validated. The thorough diagnostic evaluation identifies subgroups that require an evidence base for treatment and further study on aetiology and diagnosis. Structured collection of uniform patient data through a CPR was feasible and facilitated the evaluation of diagnostic and therapeutic modalities. The reported advantages, pitfalls and solutions with this approach may help other centres to decide on how to implement a CPR. Conscientious collection of a standard data set in infertility centres facilitates pooling of data and evidence-based multicentre research.

No abstract

Insight into the current status of endoscopy reports is needed for a discussion on the desirability and feasibility of (more) standardized endoscopy reporting. We collected, from ten endoscopists, 181 reports in two diagnostic and two indication categories. An inventory was made of the subjects dealt with in the reports, such as: indication, premedication, therapy plan, and descriptive aspects of ventricular ulcers and lower tract polyps. To assess endoscopists' opinions on their reports, 16 randomly selected reports were reviewed by the ten endoscopists, using the Delphi method. The reports varied enormously in content and detail; 19 of the 28 subjects were not explicitly described in more than 50% of the studied reports. Such variation in the contents of reports may decrease the quality of care. The large number of topics that endoscopists indicate to be missing in their reports (on average 14 topics per report) suggests that more detail should be given in endoscopy reports. The current method of reporting causes endoscopists to omit information that they consider important. Due to the low overall consensus among endoscopists on which specific topics to include (eight or more endoscopists agreed on 15% of topics) we conclude that general criteria for the contents of reports cannot yet be formulated. However, the fact that the endoscopists agreed with more than one-third of the remarks made by colleagues opens a perspective towards identifying criteria for the formalization of certain report categories.