Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31806611›Full record

Observational studyBMJ open2019

Improving data sharing between acute hospitals in England: an overview of health record system distribution and retrospective observational analysis of inter-hospital transitions of care.

Leigh R Warren, Jonathan Clarke, Sonal Arora, Ara Darzi

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Leigh R WarrenDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK leigh.warren@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-6493-430X
Jonathan ClarkeDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Sonal AroraDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Ara DarziDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine the frequency of use and spatial distribution of health record systems in the English National Health Service (NHS). To quantify transitions of care between acute hospital trusts and health record systems to guide improvements to data sharing and interoperability.

designRetrospective observational study using Hospital Episode Statistics.

settingAcute hospital trusts in the NHS in England.

participantsAll adult patients resident in England that had one or more inpatient, outpatient or accident and emergency encounters at acute NHS hospital trusts between April 2017 and April 2018. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency of use and spatial distribution of health record systems. Frequency and spatial distribution of transitions of care between hospital trusts and health record systems.

results21 286 873 patients were involved in 121 351 837 encounters at 152 included trusts. 117 (77.0%) hospital trusts were using electronic health records (EHR). There was limited regional alignment of EHR systems. On 11 017 767 (9.1%) occasions, patients attended a hospital using a different health record system to their previous hospital attendance. 15 736 863 (73.9%) patients had two or more encounters with the included trusts and 3 931 255 (25.0%) of those attended two or more trusts. Over half (53.6%) of these patients had encounters shared between just 20 pairs of hospitals. Only two of these pairs of trusts used the same EHR system.

conclusionsEach year, millions of patients in England attend two or more different hospital trusts. Most of the pairs of trusts that commonly share patients do not use the same record systems. This research highlights significant barriers to inter-hospital data sharing and interoperability. Findings from this study can be used to improve electronic health record system coordination and develop targeted approaches to improve interoperability. The methods used in this study could be used in other healthcare systems that face the same interoperability challenges.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsInformation DisseminationTransitional CareEnglandHealth Services AccessibilityHospitals, PublicHumansInpatientsOutpatientsRetrospective StudiesState Medicinehealth economicshealth informaticshealth policyhealth & safetyorganisation of health servicesquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID31806611
PMCPMC7008454

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.