john hilton wrote: > On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 08:58, Tim Churches wrote: > >>Richard Hosking wrote: >> >>>Who are the customers? I think GPs remain the primary customer, but the >>>business case remains weak. I have now used probably the top 3 software >>>programs in Australia - I am still not convinced that fully electronic >>>records are good for my business (they take longer) . If money was the >>>only consideratiuon I would go back to paper. They *possibly* reduce >>>medicolegal risk but other factors such as the behaviour of my fellow >>>doctors in a group practice is a greater determinant of risk, and it is >>>by no means eliminated. >> >>This is an important observation - that fully electronic health records >>in a GP setting take longer to record. You're not the only one to make >>that observation. It seems to me that a fundamental question remains >>unresolved: are electronic health records in primary care settings >>intrinsically slower than written records, or is the apparent slowness >>due to unimaginatively (and/or unscientifically) designed software, or >>is it because there is a tendency to record more information in more >>detail in electronic medical record systems? > > You would need to look at what was actually being recorded- the quantity of > information. > The squiggles and individual shorthands of doctors record more than can > quickly be typed, but are not easily read by others or very useful for > retrieving information later. I find that typing records, i end up being more > verbose at times but exclude information at others. > Of course, electronic records do far more as time goes on: recording > consultations by diagnosis, keeping track of prescription history are two to > mention. > But, as you say, it is maybe not a good business case in terms of speed of > consulting. it is only when you start to look at quality and data mining and > preventive care on a more advanced level that electronic records start to win > out.
Yes, agree, but that's no reason not to do R&D into making the speed and ease of use of electronic records better. And I'm not just talking about nicer looking data entry screens and more logical menus, but rather some fundamental rethinking about how clinical data might be captured electronically. I am constantly impressed by how well the T9 predictive text entry works on my mobile phone. So how come clinical information systems for GPs don't have something similar (but even better)? That's the sort of thing I mean. There is no reason why information systems shouldn't allow completely idiosyncratic sets of abbreviations etc to be used to enter data - as long as the information is immediately translated into a common lingua franca (eg SNOMED CT ConceptIDs) before it is stored in the system - so it is understandable by others immediately on retrieval. Tim C _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
