BACKGROUND: Computerised record keeping in primary care is increasing. However, no study has systematically examined the completeness of computer records in practices using different forms of record keeping. AIM: To compare computer-only record keeping to paper-only and hybrid systems, by measuring the number of consultations and symptoms recorded within individual consultations. DESIGN OF STUDY: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Eighteen general practices in the Exeter Primary Care Trust. METHOD: This study was part of a retrospective case control study of cancer patients aged over 40 years. All recorded consultations for a 2-year period were identified and coded for 1396 patients. Records were classified as paper, computer, or hybrid, depending on which medium stored the clinical information from consultations. RESULTS: More consultations were recorded in hybrid systems (median in 2 years = 11, interquartile range [IQR] = 6-18) than computer systems (median in 2 years = 9, IQR = 4-16.5) or paper systems (median in 2 years = 8, IQR = 5-14,): P <0.001. In a Poisson regression analysis, which included age, sex, and future cancer diagnosis, the rates of consultations recorded in paper and computer systems were 16% and 11% lower, respectively, than in hybrid systems. Fewer telephone consultations were recorded in paper systems, and fewer home visits in computer systems. Fewer symptoms were recorded in individual consultations on computer systems. Recording of absent symptoms and severity of symptoms was highest in paper systems. CONCLUSION: Hybrid systems of primary care record keeping document higher numbers of consultations than computer-only or paper-only systems. The quality of individual consultation recording is highest in paper-only systems. This has medicolegal implications and may impact upon continuity of care.
BACKGROUND: Computerised record keeping in primary care is increasing. However, no study has systematically examined the completeness of computer records in practices using different forms of record keeping. AIM: To compare computer-only record keeping to paper-only and hybrid systems, by measuring the number of consultations and symptoms recorded within individual consultations. DESIGN OF STUDY: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Eighteen general practices in the Exeter Primary Care Trust. METHOD: This study was part of a retrospective case control study of cancerpatients aged over 40 years. All recorded consultations for a 2-year period were identified and coded for 1396 patients. Records were classified as paper, computer, or hybrid, depending on which medium stored the clinical information from consultations. RESULTS: More consultations were recorded in hybrid systems (median in 2 years = 11, interquartile range [IQR] = 6-18) than computer systems (median in 2 years = 9, IQR = 4-16.5) or paper systems (median in 2 years = 8, IQR = 5-14,): P <0.001. In a Poisson regression analysis, which included age, sex, and future cancer diagnosis, the rates of consultations recorded in paper and computer systems were 16% and 11% lower, respectively, than in hybrid systems. Fewer telephone consultations were recorded in paper systems, and fewer home visits in computer systems. Fewer symptoms were recorded in individual consultations on computer systems. Recording of absent symptoms and severity of symptoms was highest in paper systems. CONCLUSION: Hybrid systems of primary care record keeping document higher numbers of consultations than computer-only or paper-only systems. The quality of individual consultation recording is highest in paper-only systems. This has medicolegal implications and may impact upon continuity of care.
Authors: Jayna M Holroyd-Leduc; Diane Lorenzetti; Sharon E Straus; Lindsay Sykes; Hude Quan Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-06-09 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: M N Sarkies; K-A Bowles; E H Skinner; D Mitchell; R Haas; M Ho; K Salter; K May; D Markham; L O'Brien; S Plumb; T P Haines Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2015-02-18 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Carolyn De Coster; Hude Quan; Alan Finlayson; Min Gao; Patricia Halfon; Karin H Humphries; Helen Johansen; Lisa M Lix; Jean-Christophe Luthi; Jin Ma; Patrick S Romano; Leslie Roos; Vijaya Sundararajan; Jack V Tu; Greg Webster; William A Ghali Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2006-06-15 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Elizabeth A Shephard; Richard D Neal; Peter W Rose; Fiona M Walter; William T Hamilton Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 5.386