Literature DB >> 15704693

Electronic medical records may be inadequate for improving population health status through general practice: cervical smears as a case study.

Caroline O M Laurence1, Teresa Burgess, Justin Beilby, Brian Symon, David Wilkinson.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: [corrected] To determine whether routine electronic records are an accurate source of population health data in general practice through reviewing cervical smears rates in four South Australian practices.
METHODS: The cervical screening rate in a purposive sample of four general practices (three rural and one urban) was obtained using an audit of medical records and a telephone follow-up.
RESULTS: The cervical screening rate using only immediately available electronic medical records indicated an overall low rate for the participating practices (44.9%). However, telephone follow-up and adjustments to the denominator indicated the real rate to be 85.7%. The offer of appointments during the telephone follow-up further improved this rate for eligible women (93.8%). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Electronic medical records may be inadequate in preventive screening in general practice, without ensuring their accuracy. Updating records by telephone or personal follow-up produces a much more accurate denominator.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15704693     DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-842x.2004.tb00436.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aust N Z J Public Health        ISSN: 1326-0200            Impact factor:   2.939


  2 in total

1.  Using online adverts to increase the uptake of cervical screening amongst "real Eastenders": an opportunistic controlled trial.

Authors:  Ray B Jones; Mar Soler-Lopez; Daniel Zahra; Judith Shankleman; Esther Trenchard-Mabere
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2013-03-26

2.  A cross-sectional survey assessing the acceptability and feasibility of self-report electronic data collection about health risks from patients attending an Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Service.

Authors:  Natasha E Noble; Christine L Paul; Mariko L Carey; Robert W Sanson-Fisher; Stephen V Blunden; Jessica M Stewart; Katherine M Conigrave
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2014-04-16       Impact factor: 2.796

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.