Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Editor
The negative effects of computers in the doctor-patient encounter
This article originally appeared in BMJ USA
EDITOR Computers in the general practice consultation can improve the
quality of medical care in some cases.1 Benefits have been shown in disease prevention with an improvement in immunization rates
by up to 18% and other preventive services by up to
50%,2 in disease management with more appropriate dosing
for drugs with a narrow therapeutic range,3 and in the
management of chronic physical illness when there is a clear consensus
regarding treatment protocols.
4 5
However, their use is also associated with significant detrimental
effects on the encounter. Consultation time is increased by their use,
and there is no appreciable benefit for patient satisfaction.2 Both practitioners' conduct and disclosure
of information by the patient are adversely affected,3 and
many patients are concerned about confidentiality.4 The
current computer systems are not well suited to the wide variety of
undifferentiated problems that present in general practice, and their
use may prevent the doctor from developing an empathic relationship
with patients. This makes evaluating the impact of computers on
doctor-patient interactions particularly important.5
Work is still needed to ensure that computerization of the
doctor-patient encounter is not detrimental to the quality of the relationship between the doctor and patient.
In their review, Mitchell and Sullivan found no evidence that
computer use during the doctor-patient encounter resulted in negative
effects on patient outcomes, and they concluded that doctors and
patients were generally positive about use of computers.
University of Southampton, UK eanador{at}soton.ac.uk
| 1. |
Delaney BC, Fitzmaurice DA, Riaz A, Hobbs FDR.
Can computerised decision support systems deliver improved quality in primary care?
BMJ
1999;
319:
1281 |
| 2. |
Sullivan F, Mitchell E.
Has general practitioner computing made a difference to patient care? A systematic review of published reports.
BMJ
1995;
311:
848-852 |
| 3. |
Greatbatch D, Heath C, Campion P, Luff P.
How do desk-top computers affect the doctor-patient interaction?
Fam Pract
1995;
12:
32-36 |
| 4. | Ridsdale L, Hudd S. What do patients want and not want to see about themselves on the computer screen: a qualitative study. Scand J Prim Health Care 1997; 15: 180-183[ISI][Medline]. |
| 5. | Feinstein AR. The need for humanised science in evaluating medication. Lancet 1972; ii: 421-423[CrossRef]. |
Primary care skills and computing
EDITOR While agreeing with this statement, we feel that there is more to this
issue than just being comfortable using a computer. There is little
doubt that most practitioners have some basic knowledge of computing,
but are they information literate A study of general practitioners' use of evidence databases showed
that 22% were aware of the Cochrane database, 6% had access to it,
and only 4% had ever used it.1 Another study found that only 26% of family physicians had computers in their offices and that
the majority turned to books when faced with questions about patient
care.2 Hence, research suggests that general practitioners may be reluctant to embrace information technology. Perhaps the reasons
for this reluctance relate more to technical issues than practitioners' skills.
There is no consensus on the best method for retrieving information
from the web. Graber and colleagues3 found that
medicine-specific search engines on the web fare poorly in answering
clinical questions when compared with general search engines.
Furthermore, a review by Hersh and Hickman4 suggests that
current information retrieval systems are too slow to allow busy clinicians to address the myriad questions that arise in clinical practice. Hence, how can one integrate computers into clinical practice
if the tools we use are worn and dated?
The younger generation of medical practitioners and medical students
seems to have more confidence and skill in computer use and medical
informatics.5 With advances in user-friendly technology, perhaps the problem of information illiteracy will no longer exist for
future generations.
Mitchell and Sullivan's comprehensive review of primary care
computing raised the issue that practitioners perceive their training
in computer use as being poor. They also noted that computer literacy
should be made a component of ongoing medical education.
can they search Medline efficiently,
negotiate the Cochrane database, navigate a reliable health portal, and
evaluate useful content on behalf of their patients?
Wayne Lee
University of New South Wales, Australia
1.
Young JM, Ward JE.
General practitioners' use of evidence databases.
Med J Australia
1999;
170:
56-58.
2.
Ely JW, Levy BT, Hartz A.
What clinical information resources are available in family physicians' offices?
J Family Practice
1999;
48:
135-139.
3.
Graber MA, Bergus GR, York C.
Using the World Wide Web to answer clinical questions: how efficient are different methods of information retrieval?
J Family Practice
1999;
48:
520-524.
4.
Hersh WR, Hickman DH.
How well do physicians use electronic information retrieval systems? A framework for investigation and systematic review.
JAMA
1998;
280:
134713-134752.
5.
Jerant AF, Lloyd AJ.
Applied medical informatics and computing skills of students, residents, and faculty.
Family Medicine
2000;
32:
2672-2672.
© BMJ 2002
Read all Rapid Responses
Israeli students are refusing to perform intimate examinations on anaesthetised women without their informed consent.