ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2003
Electronic medical summaries in general practice--considering the patient's contribution.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- A review of the personal health records in selected countries and Iran.Journal of medical systems · 2012Review
- Genetic epidemiology and primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2006Article
- National programme for IT: the pound sterling 30 billion question.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2005Article
- The journey towards patient-centredness.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2004Article
- Sharing patient information electronically throughout NHS: patients must be involved too.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2003Article
- Sharing patient information electronically throughout the NHS.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2003Article
- Confidentiality: consent is not sufficient.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2003Article
- Efforts to ban direct-to-consumer advertising in New Zealand: a call to action.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2003Article
- How to change clinical behaviour: no answers yet.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2003Article
- Patient-perceived usefulness of online electronic medical records: employing grounded theory in the development of information and communication technologies for use by patients living with chronic illness.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIAArticle
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundData entry into electronic records is intrinsically complex. Errors may occur in the primary (paper) record and further errors when data is transferred to the electronic record.
aimsTo elicit patients' ideas about their personal medical summaries, specifically considering accuracy, level of agreement between doctors and patients, and patients' concerns about computerisation and access to their records. DESIGN OF STUDY: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews.
settingNineteen patients aged 20 to 65 years from a large training general practice (eight partners) in a deprived area in the West Midlands.
methodPatients agreeing to be interviewed were mailed a copy of their electronic summary, which contained 'active problems', 'significant (not active) problems', 'allergies', and 'present medication'. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, which were tape recorded and transcribed. The constant comparative method of grounded theory was used to analyse the data.
resultsPatients saw the summaries as a tool for the doctor's own use. They expected their general practitioners (GPs) to select the information relevant for their medical care, keep it updated, make it quickly available across the health service where needed, and limit access appropriately. The saw potential benefits of computerisation in supporting continuity of care. No patients had previously asked to see their notes, but most welcomed the opportunity to discuss the content of the summaries, correct any errors, and negotiate a description of problems that more closely reflected their perspective. Over half of the summaries were altered by the GP after discussion.
conclusionsPatients trust their personal doctors, both as caretakers of their notes and as gatekeepers for access. Electronic medical summaries in general practice are inaccurate to a worrying extent. Negotiation with patients can result in a more accurate summary that includes the patient's perspective. Further studies are needed to look at the feasibility of patient participation in such a process and to see what benefits, in terms of improved continuity of care and improved doctor-patient relationship, may result.
Indexed as
Identifiers
12879829PMC1314571What 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.