ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1990
General practice computing in Scotland.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1990. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness and cost of different strategies for information feedback in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1994Trial
- Population-based prevention of influenza in Dutch general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1997Article
- Completeness and accuracy of morbidity and repeat prescribing records held on general practice computers in Scotland.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1996Article
- Assessment of the completeness and accuracy of computer medical records in four practices committed to recording data on computer.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1995Article
- Rule of halves: implications of increasing diagnosis and reducing dropout for future workload and prescribing costs in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1992Review
- A total audit of preventive procedures in 45 practices caring for 430,000 patients.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1990Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate a method of assessing the extent of routine patient data held on computer by Scottish general practitioners.
designAn "electronic questionnaire" in the form of an interrogation questionnaire was used to extract a subset of data from practice computers running a standard software package (the general practice administrative system for Scotland, GPASS). The data were retained by each practice and also collected and analysed centrally to produce regional and national data. SUBJECTS: All 257 general practices in Scotland using GPASS software were sent the electronic questionnaire; data from 154 practices, including 759 general practitioners and covering 1,010,452 patients, were collected.
resultsNinety three practices had all their patient records on computer; others had selectively entered data on, for example, only those patients receiving repeat prescriptions. The number of computerised patient records per practitioner ranged from 46 to 2373. Altogether 194,261 patients had repeat prescribing data and 204,005 morbidity or clinical data.
conclusionAn electronic questionnaire is a simple and effective way of investigating the information held on practice computers, allowing analysis and feedback of information to practitioners. Development of this system will provide a cumulative information system for Scottish general practitioners.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.