ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2011
The medico-professional quality of GP consultations assessed by analysing patient records.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the medico-professional quality of consultations by analysing textual data from patient records.
designQualitative analyse of textual data.
settingFour primary health care centres using electronic patient records (EPR) in Finland. SUBJECTS: EPR and paired questionnaires of 175 consultations filled in by GPs and their patients independently.
main outcome measuresMedico-professional quality of consultations, quality of care of acute respiratory infections, and hypertension.
resultsThe medico-professional quality of the consultations was quite good. However, 9% of the records could not been assessed at all because of missing or poor documentation and 9% were assessed as poor. The treatment of acute respiratory infections and hypertension is not in line with current care guidelines. Smoking habits or other health behaviour or lifestyle factors were seldom recorded.
conclusionsThe medico-professional quality of the consultation was quite good. Quality improvement is needed in the treatment of acute respiratory infections and hypertension. User-friendly EPR systems would improve the content of patient records.
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.