Objectives To determine whether paperless medical records contained less information than paper based medical records and whether that information was harder to retrieve. Design Cross sectional study with review of medical records and interviews with general practitioners. Setting 25 general practices in Trent region. Participants 53 British general practitioners (25 using paperless records and 28 using paper based records) who each provided records of 10 consultations. Main outcome measures Content of a sample of records and doctor recall of consultations for which paperless or paper based records had been made.
Our objective was to identify and establish consensus on the most important safety features of GP computer systems, with a particular emphasis on medicines management. We used a two-round electronic Delphi survey, completed by a 21-member multidisciplinary expert panel, all from the UK. The main outcome measure was percentage agreement of the panel members on the importance of the presence of a number of different safety features (presented as clinical statements) on GP computer systems. We found 90% or greater agreement on the importance of 32 (58%) statements. These statements, indicating issues considered to be of considerable importance (rated as important or very important), related to: computerised alerts; the need to avoid spurious alerts; making it difficult to override critical alerts; having audit trails of such overrides; support for safe repeat prescribing; effective computer-user interface; importance of call and recall management; and the need to be able to run safety reports. The high level of agreement among the expert panel members indicates clear themes and priorities that need to be addressed in any further improvement of safety features in primary care computing systems.
Objective: The authors sought to identify ways in which the use of general practice computer systems could be improved to enhance safety in primary care. Design: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews. Participants: Thirty one participants, representing a broad range of relevant disciplines and interest groups. Participants included clinicians, computer system and drug database suppliers, academics with interests in health informatics and members of governmental, professional and patient representative bodies. Setting: UK. Results: Participants identified deficiencies in current systems that pose serious threats to patient safety. To bring about improvements, providers need to supply clinicians with safe, accurate and accessible information for decision support; be aware of the importance of human ergonomics in the design of hazard alerts; consider the value of audit trails and develop mechanisms to allow for the accurate transfer of information between clinical computer systems. These improvements in computer systems will be most likely to occur if mandated through regulations. Individual practices are in need of improved education and training which focuses, in particular, on providing support with recording data accurately and using call, recall and reminders effectively. Conclusion: There are significant opportunities for improving the safety of general practice computer systems. Priorities include improving the knowledge base for clinical decision support, paying greater attention to human ergonomics in system design, improved staff training and the introduction of new regulations mandating system suppliers to satisfy essential safety requirements.
In many countries, primary care informatics has developed to the point that it is recognised as an important enabler of quality improvement; this has not occurred to date in the United States. With this conference, we aimed to build an international consensus as to whether primary care has unique characteristics that require an informatics subspecialty; and, if so, to establish the role of primary care informatics in improving patient care, and to enable its recognition in the national strategy. The conference was organised by the primary care informatics working groups of AMIA, EFMI, IMIA and Wonca and took place at Medinfo 2004 in San Francisco. It consisted of two plenary lectures, two small-group work sessions and a panel discussion to summarise the day. It was attended by
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.