Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (9)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hobbs, F.
Right arrow Articles by Hawker, A
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hobbs, F.
Right arrow Articles by Hawker, A
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Family Practice Vol. 12, No. 2, 221-226
© Oxford University Press 1995


research-article

Computerised data collection: practicability and quality in selected general practices

FDR Hobbs and A Hawker*

Departments of General Practice Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
*Accounting and Finance, University of Birmingham Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK

The objective of the study as to assess the consistency with which a set of pre-defined data about three fictitious patients was entered into a sample group of practice computer systems, and to measure the time required for routine data capture of this kind. The study design was a prospective, piloted, postal survey, in which respondents were requested to enter a variety of general sample data onto their systems, to time the process, and record details of any difficulties. The subjects were 76 (39%) responding general practices in England and Ulster, from a random sample of members of a GP computer specialist group. These results (which in view of the highly motivated characteristics of the responding sample are likely to represent best practice) showed that differing conventions were applied in entering patient data, even among practices using the same type of computer system. Potentially significant errors and distortions were found in the data as recorded in the systems, such as the 29% of immunisation sequences which were slightly inaccurately entered. The main problems with the data entry comprised simple operator errors, inconsistency in the use of terms entered, and difficulties in recording negative data (only 20% of practices could enter patient ‘not incontinent’). Practices varied widely in the way they allocated data recording responsibilities to staff, with only 6% of practices involving all staff in data entry. The times reported for entering records varied con siderably, with an average of 26 seconds per data item (ranging from an average 10 seconds per data item to 60 seconds between doctors). The security of computer data was not a particular priority for 76% of practices. In conclusion, the workload of maintaining a fully computerised set of patient records can be substantial. The use of a computerised system for data capture by no means guarantees a standardisation of approach, either within or between practices.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Fam PractHome page
S. W Pascoe, R. D Neal, P. L Heywood, V. L Allgar, J. N. Miles, and J. Stefoski-Mikeljevic
Identifying patients with a cancer diagnosis using general practice medical records and Cancer Registry data
Fam. Pract., August 1, 2008; 25(4): 215 - 220.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Health Informatics JournalHome page
J. Hippisley-Cox, V. Hammersley, M. Pringle, C. Coupland, N. Crown, and L. Wright
Methodology for Assessing the Usefulness of General Practice Data for Research in One Research Network
Health Informatics Journal, June 1, 2004; 10(2): 91 - 109.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of HealthHome page
C. Warwick
Gastrointestinal disorders: are health care professionals missing zoonotic causes?
Perspectives in Public Health, May 1, 2004; 124(3): 137 - 142.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
BMJHome page
J. Hippisley-Cox, M. Pringle, R. Cater, A. Wynn, V. Hammersley, C. Coupland, R. Hapgood, P. Horsfield, S. Teasdale, and C. Johnson
The electronic patient record in primary care--regression or progression? A cross sectional study
BMJ, June 25, 2003; 326(7404): 1439 - 1443.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc.Home page
S. de Lusignan, P. N. Stephens, N. Adal, and A. Majeed
Does Feedback Improve the Quality of Computerized Medical Records in Primary Care?
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., July 1, 2002; 9(4): 395 - 401.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
PediatricsHome page
W. G. Adams, W. P. Conners, A. M. Mann, and S. Palfrey
Immunization Entry at the Point of Service Improves Quality, Saves Time, and Is Well-Accepted
Pediatrics, September 1, 2000; 106(3): 489 - 492.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
Health Informatics JournalHome page
J. Naish, K. Moser, P. Sturdy, and Y. H. Carter
Using administrative data for primary care research: the City and East London General Practice Database Project
Health Informatics Journal, March 1, 1999; 5(1): 30 - 34.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Health Informatics JournalHome page
P. Sturdy and A.E. Livingstone
Can general practice computer data be of use in assessing asthma service delivery and needs?
Health Informatics Journal, January 1, 1997; 3(2): 93 - 99.
[Abstract] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.