BMJ  2003;326:1101-1102 (24 May), doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7399.1101

Editorial

Why clinical information standards matter

Because they constrain what can be described

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Most clinicians probably know clinical information standards as the coding systems used for representing clinical concepts. They include longstanding systems such as the International Classification of Diseases and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as well as more recent systems such as the Read Clinical Classification and Snomed, though coded vocabularies themselves are only the visible tip of the standards iceberg. Work on clinical information standards is not glamorous, but such standards are fundamental for progress in health care. They are essential resources for future clinical decision support, audit, governance, research, education, and training. In a very real sense, these standards define what can be said about patient care.

In this issue Brown et al describe a crossover trial comparing the accuracy and usability of two clinical terminology standards in a setting designed to reflect tasks and circumstances commonly encountered in contemporary British general practice (p 1127. . . [Full text of this article]

Department of Computing Science, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8RZ (martin@dcs.gla.ac.uk)

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

How computers help make efficient use of consultations

Frank Sullivan and Jeremy C Wyatt
BMJ 2005 331: 1010-1012. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Use of Read codes in diabetes management in a south London primary care group: implications for establishing disease registers

Jeremy Gray, Douglas Orr, and Azeem Majeed
BMJ 2003 326: 1130. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Randomised crossover trial comparing the performance of Clinical Terms Version 3 and Read Codes 5 byte set coding schemes in general practice

Philip J B Brown, Victoria Warmington, Michael Laurence, and A Toby Prevost
BMJ 2003 326: 1127. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Richesson, R. L., Andrews, J. E., Krischer, J. P. (2006). Use of SNOMED CT to Represent Clinical Research Data: A Semantic Characterization of Data Items on Case Report Forms in Vasculitis Research. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 13: 536-546 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Sullivan, F., Wyatt, J. C (2005). How computers help make efficient use of consultations. BMJ 331: 1010-1012 [Full text]  
• Sanderson, H., Adams, T., Budden, M., Hoare, C. (2004). Lessons from the central Hampshire electronic health record pilot project: evaluation of the electronic health record for supporting patient care and secondary analysis. BMJ 328: 875-878 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Biophysical Semeiotics, Clinical Information Standards and “human” Medicine.

Sergio Stagnaro
bmj.com, 23 May 2003 [Full text]

Clinical coding: when to standardise ?

Jeremy E Rogers
bmj.com, 27 May 2003 [Full text]

Why clinical information standards matter

Robin Y Mann, et al.
bmj.com, 30 May 2003 [Full text]

Clinical Terminology numbering

Charles A West
bmj.com, 30 May 2003 [Full text]

Using people to save work for computers

Adrian K Midgley
bmj.com, 20 Mar 2009 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more >>