Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31874855›Full record

ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2019

Recording problems and diagnoses in clinical care: developing guidance for healthcare professionals and system designers.

Anoop Dinesh Shah, Nicola J Quinn, Afzal Chaudhry, Ralph Sullivan, Julian Costello, Dermot O'Riordan, Jan Hoogewerf, Martin Orton, Lorraine Foley, Helene Feger and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

11 authors.

Anoop Dinesh ShahInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK anoop@doctors.org.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8907-5724
Nicola J QuinnHealth Informatics Unit, Royal College of Physicians, London, UK.
Afzal ChaudhryCambridge Transplant Centre, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK.
Ralph SullivanRCGP-CIRC: Clinical Innovation and Research Centre, Royal College of General Practitioners, London, UK.
Julian CostelloRCGP-HIG: Health Informatics Group, Royal College of General Practitioners, London, UK.
Dermot O'RiordanWest Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, UK.
Jan HoogewerfHealth Informatics Unit, Royal College of Physicians, London, UK.
Martin OrtonProfessional Record Standards Body, London, UK.
Lorraine FoleyProfessional Record Standards Body, London, UK.
Helene FegerProfessional Record Standards Body, London, UK.
John G WilliamsHealth Informatics Unit, Royal College of Physicians, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate recording of problems and diagnoses in health records is key to safe and effective patient care, yet it is often done poorly. Electronic health record systems vary in their functionality and ease of use, and are not optimally designed for easy recording and sharing of clinical information. There is a lack of professional consensus and guidance on how problems and diagnoses should be recorded.

methodsThe Professional Record Standards Body commissioned work led by the Royal College of Physicians Health Informatics Unit to carry out a literature review, draft guidance, carry out an online consultation and round table discussion, and produce a report including recommendations for systems. A patient workshop was held to explore patient preferences for mechanisms for sharing diagnosis information between primary and secondary care.

resultsConsensus was reached among medical specialties on key elements of diagnosis recording, and draft guidance was produced ready for piloting in a variety of care settings. Patients were keen for better ways for diagnosis information to be shared. DISCUSSION: Improving the recording of diagnoses and problems will require a major effort of which the new guidance is only a part. The guidance needs to be embedded in training, and clinical systems need to have improved, standardised functionality. Front-line clinicians, specialist societies, clinical informaticians and patients need to be engaged in developing information models for diagnoses to support care and research, accessible via user-friendly interfaces.

Indexed as

ConsensusReferral and ConsultationData CollectionGuidelines as TopicHealth PersonnelHumansMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedPatient Preferenceinformation managementinformation systemsmedical informaticsrecord systems

Identifiers

PMID31874855
PMCPMC7062352

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.