BMJ  2003;327:622 (13 September), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7415.622-b

Letter

Electronic patient records in primary care

Study has serious flaw

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

EDITOR—There is a serious flaw in the design of the study by Hippisley-Cox et al on electronic patient records in primary care.¹ The authors say that they intended to differentiate between manual (all records kept on paper) and combination (part electronic and part paper record keeping) but actually differentiated between paperless (electronic) and paper based (combination or manual) records. The findings are therefore questionable.

For example, given that most general practitioners routinely prescribe electronically it is difficult to believe that paperless records were more likely to specify the drug dose unless Hippisley-Cox et al were reviewing only the paper based components of their paper based group, as opposed to the full record.

Additionally, Hippisley-Cox et al conclude that paperless records compare favourably with manual records. This is an extremely positive conclusion given that they specify one of the main reasons as to why general practitioners prefer to use . . . [Full text of this article]

Centre for Healthcare Innovation and Improvement, E414A—4480 Oak Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6H 3V4 nshaw@cw.bc.ca

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

Relevant Articles

Electronic patient records in primary care: Author's reply

Julia Hippisley-Cox
BMJ 2003 327: 622. [Extract] [Full Text]

The electronic patient record in primary care—regression or progression? A cross sectional study

Julia Hippisley-Cox, Mike Pringle, Ruth Cater, Alison Wynn, Vicky Hammersley, Carol Coupland, Rhydian Hapgood, Peter Horsfield, Sheila Teasdale, and Christine Johnson
BMJ 2003 326: 1439-1443. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Online poll

Find out more here>> and here>>