OBJECTIVE: To obtain insight into the effects of electronic communication on GPs by studying those publications in literature describing the effects of structured electronic clinical communication in general practice. METHODS: We retrieved all publications in the English language indexed in MEDLINE under the MESH term 'Computer Communication Networks' AND having either 'family practice' or 'primary health care' as MESH term OR 'GP', or 'GPs' as text word. RESULTS: A total of 176 publications were retrieved of which 30 publications met the criteria. In 28 of these 30 publications potential effects were described; one described claimed effects, three described demonstrated effects with subjective data and five described demonstrated effects with objective data. The studies documented, furthermore, effects on the speed of communication, the content of information and records, a change of processes involved in the communication, quality of care, costs, workload of physicians, appreciation of physicians, confidentiality, and adherence. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that only a few studies evaluated electronic communication versus paper communication. Of these studies, only a few report improvement. Our final conclusion is that, so far, literature has not shown that the positive effects can be explained by electronic communication as such.
OBJECTIVE: To obtain insight into the effects of electronic communication on GPs by studying those publications in literature describing the effects of structured electronic clinical communication in general practice. METHODS: We retrieved all publications in the English language indexed in MEDLINE under the MESH term 'Computer Communication Networks' AND having either 'family practice' or 'primary health care' as MESH term OR 'GP', or 'GPs' as text word. RESULTS: A total of 176 publications were retrieved of which 30 publications met the criteria. In 28 of these 30 publications potential effects were described; one described claimed effects, three described demonstrated effects with subjective data and five described demonstrated effects with objective data. The studies documented, furthermore, effects on the speed of communication, the content of information and records, a change of processes involved in the communication, quality of care, costs, workload of physicians, appreciation of physicians, confidentiality, and adherence. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that only a few studies evaluated electronic communication versus paper communication. Of these studies, only a few report improvement. Our final conclusion is that, so far, literature has not shown that the positive effects can be explained by electronic communication as such.
Authors: Colin Walsh; Eugenia L Siegler; Erin Cheston; Heather O'Donnell; Sarah Collins; Daniel Stein; David K Vawdrey; Peter D Stetson Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 2.960