Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26033569›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of medical informatics2015

A comparison of mental state examination documentation by junior clinicians in electronic health records before and after the introduction of a semi-structured assessment template (OPCRIT+).

Sarah E M Lobo, James Rucker, Madeleine Kerr, Fidel Gallo, Giles Constable, Matthew Hotopf, Robert Stewart, Matthew Broadbent, Martin Baggaley, Simon Lovestone and 5 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of medical informatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah E M LoboNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Biomedical Research Centre and Dementia Unit at South London and Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust and King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
James RuckerNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Biomedical Research Centre and Dementia Unit at South London and Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust and King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Madeleine KerrNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Biomedical Research Centre and Dementia Unit at South London and Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust and King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Fidel GalloNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Biomedical Research Centre and Dementia Unit at South London and Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust and King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Giles ConstableNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Biomedical Research Centre and Dementia Unit at South London and Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust and King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Matthew HotopfNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Biomedical Research Centre and Dementia Unit at South London and Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust and King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Robert StewartNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Biomedical Research Centre and Dementia Unit at South London and Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust and King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Matthew BroadbentNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Biomedical Research Centre and Dementia Unit at South London and Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust and King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Martin BaggaleyNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Biomedical Research Centre and Dementia Unit at South London and Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust and King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Simon LovestoneNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Biomedical Research Centre and Dementia Unit at South London and Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust and King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Peter McGuffinNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Biomedical Research Centre and Dementia Unit at South London and Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust and King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Myanthi AmarasingheNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Biomedical Research Centre and Dementia Unit at South London and Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust and King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Stuart NewmanMedical Research Council Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Gunter SchumannNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Biomedical Research Centre and Dementia Unit at South London and Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust and King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Philip J BrittainNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Biomedical Research Centre and Dementia Unit at South London and Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust and King's College London, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: Philip.Brittain@kcl.ac.uk.
National Health Service · GBNational Institute for Health Research · GBSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust · GBMedical Research Council · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G0901858
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe mental state examination (MSE) provides crucial information for healthcare professionals in the assessment and treatment of psychiatric patients as well as potentially providing valuable data for mental health researchers accessing electronic health records (EHRs). We wished to establish if improvements could be achieved in the documenting of MSEs by junior doctors within a large United Kingdom mental health trust following the introduction of an EHR based semi-structured MSE assessment template (OPCRIT+).

methodsFirst, three consultant psychiatrists using a modified version of the Physician Documentation Quality Instrument-9 (PDQI-9) blindly rated fifty MSEs written using OPCRIT+ and fifty normal MSEs written with no template. Second, we conducted an audit to compare the frequency with which individual components of the MSE were documented in the normal MSEs compared with the OPCRIT+MSEs.

resultsPDQI-9 ratings indicated that the OPCRIT+MSEs were more 'Thorough', 'Organized', 'Useful' and 'Comprehensible' as well as being of an overall higher quality than the normal MSEs. The audit identified that the normal MSEs contained fewer mentions of the individual components of 'Thought content', 'Anxiety' and 'Cognition & Insight'.

conclusionsThese results indicate that a semi-structured assessment template significantly improves the quality of MSE recording by junior doctors within EHRs. Future work should focus on whether such improvements translate into better patient outcomes and have the ability to improve the quality of information available on EHRs to researchers.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceMedical Staff, HospitalPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesDocumentationElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansMaleMedical AuditMental DisordersObserver VariationPsychiatryUnited KingdomAuditDocumentationElectronic health recordsJunior doctorsMental state examinationNational Health ServiceOPCRIT+PsychiatrySemi-structured

Identifiers

PMID26033569
PMCPMC4526540
OpenAlexW1887041363

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.