Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12879829›Full record

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.

Lindsay Ward, Michael Innes

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Genetic epidemiology and primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2006
    Article
  3. 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 · 2005
    Article
  4. The journey towards patient-centredness.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2004
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Confidentiality: consent is not sufficient.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2003
    Article
  8. 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 · 2003
    Article
  9. How to change clinical behaviour: no answers yet.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2003
    Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Lindsay WardDepartment of Primary Care and General Practice, University of Birmingham. lindsay@iron-bridge.demon.co.uk
Michael Innes

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Patient SatisfactionAttitude to HealthConfidentialityContinuity of Patient CareFamily PracticeFemaleHumansMaleMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedPhysician-Patient Relations

Identifiers

PMID12879829
PMCPMC1314571

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.