ArticleAtencion primaria2002
[Clinical data that are essential for the primary care clinical records: an experience of evaluation and improvement].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Validity of clinical records and information systems in studies of health-care delivery in primary care].Atencion primaria · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate and improve the presence of essential clinical data in the clinical records of a primary care management area (PCMA) by means of an intervention programme.
designIntervention study without a control, using evaluation and improvement-of-quality methods. We chose 4 criteria from the minimum technical standards: personal history (PH), family background (FB), allergies to medicines (AM) and list of problems (LP). We evaluated overall compliance and compliance per primary care team (PCT) through batch quality acceptance of samples (LQAS), designed an intervention to improve the situation, and then re-evaluated.
settingPCMA of Murcia (45 PCTs). Participants. 42 PCTs (3 were excluded because they had poor coverage in their records).
interventionsThese lasted 12 months (October 1999-October 2000) and involved the following: graphic report per PCT; session with the PCT; discussion on results and strategies in the Area Management Council; and inclusion of an explicit objective, with incentives, in the management contracts. MAIN MEASUREMENTS AND
resultsSignificant improvement of the four criteria of the PCMA (improvements: FB, 48.1%; PH, 51.1%; AM, 55.4%; LP, 50.9%). LQAS analysis: we rejected 24 batches (14.3%) at the 1st evaluation and 15 (9.0%) at the second, with FB being the criterion most rejected in both instances. Defects appeared in 14 PCT (33.3%; 3 PCT accounted for 41.7%) at the 1st evaluation, and 7 PCT at the re-evaluation (16.7%; 2 reaching 46.7%).
conclusionsThe presence of essential clinical data in clinical records has improved. LQAS proved to be a rapid and simple method for evaluating, improving and monitoring quality in primary care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
12106559PMC7679556What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.