Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
GP computerised medical summaries may not be accurate or complete.
- Pamela J F Smith (10 June 2008)
-
Patients’ attitudes to the summary care record: Security concerns must be put in context
- J.E.F. Fitzgerald, A. Nikkar-Esfahani, A.A.B. Jamjoom, K.K. Shah, A.G. Acheson (16 June 2008)
-
Augmenting Patient Records or Augmenting Patient Health?
- Bruce Currey (23 June 2008)
|
|
|||
|
Pamela J F Smith, medical records summarizer and student counsellor Stockport
Send response to journal:
|
In the qualitative study of patient’s attitudes to the summary care record and Healthspace by Greenhalgh et al, the focus group raised the issue of data quality standards. There may be a problem with the accuracy and completeness of computerised medical summaries in primary care due mainly to errors in the transfer of information from the written medical records. Most practices stopped using written records several years ago, so most of the inaccuracies relate to the past medical history rather than current medical problems. Some of the mistakes that I have come across when checking the computerised medical summaries of new patients against the written notes and letters are as follows; 1) A diagnosis had been coded and entered into the summary when the consultant’s letter has actually stated that the patient did not have this condition. 2) A provisional diagnosis had been entered as a definite diagnosis, even when it had later been excluded, eg. schizophrenia, epilepsy. 3) The wrong Read code had been used. 4) An important diagnosis had not been listed in the summary. 5) Clinical information appeared to have been misunderstood. In order to produce high quality data, the medical records summarizers need to be well trained, ideally having a clinical background. They also need enough time to do a thorough job. Quickly scanning through letters for diagnoses without reading the sentences leads to errors. Another problem is that if the computerised medical summaries are simply copied when patients move to a new practice, mistakes are propagated. When computerised records become transferable between all practices the written notes will probably not even be looked at. Now is the time to check that this written information has been accurately transferred. It is tempting to believe that if it is on the computer it must be right. More research into the accuracy and completeness of these medical summaries is urgently needed, particularly if this data is going to be used to build a central database. In the meantime, perhaps GPs need to check the data with their patients and, where this raises doubts, check the written records. Dr PJF Smith
Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
J.E.F. Fitzgerald, Specialty Trainee, General Surgery Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, A. Nikkar-Esfahani, A.A.B. Jamjoom, K.K. Shah, A.G. Acheson
Send response to journal:
|
Greenhalgh et al provide valuable insight into patients’ hopes and fears for the proposed centrally stored medical record [1]. We note with interest the predominant themes of these concerns, particularly those surrounding computer security and inappropriate access. In individual interviews 11 patients (11%) expressed such concerns as justification to reject or at least remain undecided as to the benefit of a Healthspace account. Electronically stored patient information remains topical, both in relation to security [2, 3] and recent high profile breaches of this [4]. However, these concerns must be viewed in the context of current arrangements. Human links in the patient record chain are far more vulnerable to error, and we have been alarmed at the ease with which we have obtained confidential patient details by telephone. Faced with incomplete demographic details in an audit, we attempted to complete gaps in addresses, contact numbers and current treatments by telephoning patients’ own GP surgeries. We contacted 45 different GP receptions for information regarding 51 patients, successfully obtaining patient addresses and/or telephone numbers in 50 of these cases. In over a third of phone conversations no information or verification was requested in order to obtain this information. In the one unsuccessful case the receptionist had asked for verification of our identity, which we were unable to provide over the telephone. We greatly appreciate the ease with which GP receptionists assisted us, however it would seem that such help is potentially open to abuse by anyone with a convincing medical story “calling from the hospital”. Such a story easily overcomes natural safeguards; hacking into a Healthspace account would be considerably more difficult. The current debate surrounding electronic medical record security should perhaps re-focus on the current potential for breaches rather than conceptual ones in the future. J.E.F. Fitzgerald, Specialist Trainee, General Surgery. A. Nikkar-Esfahani, medical student. A.A.B. Jamjoom, medical student. K.K. Shah, medical student. A.G. Acheson, Consultant Colorectal Surgeon. Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, NG7 2UH. Competing interest: none declared. 1. Greenhalgh T, Wood GW, Bratan T, Stramer K, Hinder S. Patients' attitudes to the summary care record and HealthSpace: qualitative study. BMJ (Clinical research ed 2008; 336: 1290-5. 2. McGilchrist M, Sullivan F, Kalra D. Assuring the confidentiality of shared electronic health records. BMJ (Clinical research ed 2007; 335: 1223-4. 3. Chhanabhai P, Holt A. Consumers are ready to accept the transition to online and electronic records if they can be assured of the security measures. MedGenMed 2007; 9: 8. 4 The Daily Telegraph newspaper. Data loss crisis spreads to the NHS 2007 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/23/ndata223.xml Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Bruce Currey, Community Health Dhaka Community Hospital, 190/1 BaroMaghbazaar, Wireless Railgate, Dhaka 1217, Bangladesh
Send response to journal:
|
The £ multi-billion programmes for IT in UK health services, are designed to reform the way the health services use information, and hence to improve services and the quality of patient care (1). A key objective of the IT programmes is to connect the records of the patient’s health and care for health care staff. Researchers consequentially focus on information technology to augment the patient’s summary care records (2) rather than on IT to augment the patient’s health recovery process. While the summary care records are being connected, are the health information desires of the patient, family and community being disconnected? We find in the following hypothetical clinical fragment an illustration of a divergence between patient records and patient health. An elderly person, attended at home by the local nurse, collapses and is transported supine to the regional hospital’s A&E unit. The patient is assessed by a clinician, then transferred, again supine, on a gurney through corridors broad and narrow, to another hospital wing and elevated in a stainless steel gurney-carrying lift to a new ward. Green marker on white board is the information technology indicating the temporary record address: name of the patient, doctor and nurse. Subsequently the patient is descended in the same lift, transported along corridors narrow and broad, encrypted in another upward lift, before reaching another ward or world. Doctor’s and nurse’s names on the temporary record address are different and in blue not green marker. The patient’s name on the temporary record is that of the person previously in the bed. The relative location of the patient’s cupboard for false teeth, spectacles, and digital hearing aid [the patient’s IT augmented reality interaction with the real world (3)] differs from the cupboard’s location in the previous ward. When family arrive from the real world and ask what is happening, the patient does not know. A young registrar informs: ‘The patient is being assessed’. The health carers in this ward have no records of the initial A&E assessment. Family and community members provide information to clinicians on changes in the patient’s behaviour over the previous six months. The clinician emphasises: ‘This information is very useful’, but it is recorded neither electronically nor in the pink dog-eared patient’s file or summary care record. The next clinician receives no record of this family and community provided information. There is no dialogue with the patient about this information. The dialogue with the patient’s family and community members is not continued. Within the next ten weeks the patient changes ward, or world, no less than six times. The fourth change is by ambulance at night to another hospital. The patient’s name on the temporary record address remains constant, but each time the health carers’ names change. The GP’s record is not accessed. The hospital’s hard copy patient record, the pink dog- eared file, has three inch thick notes in code form which are unreadable and unintelligible to the patient. There is no ‘talking record’, even if the digital hearing aid were connected, which it is not. When the family seeks to locate the patient’s hearing aid, a student nurse rescues both the hearing aid and the pink dog-eared patient record from a previous ward. When patient and family attempt to open the patient record, the ‘surveillant’ staff nurse swoops to retrieve the record although it is marked with the patient’s name - perhaps a pre-cursor of identity loss or ‘institutionalisation’(4). Community members ferry the patient’s partner for hospital visits. Each morning the partner uses the digital telephone, not directly with the patient, but through the ward nurses for an update on the patient’s health. The response read from the information technology record, a hand written note, is either ‘Everything fine’ or ‘Everything fine, but patient up, shaving and trying to get dressed in the middle of the night’. The patient seeks the harmony of sleep and enjoys being healthy enough to awake, to return to life and shave. The institution requires the patient’s waking at shift change in the middle of the night to complete the summary care record on the drug regime. The normal circadian rhythm of the patient’s former real world is shattered by the ward’s virtual reality requiring the patient to be awakened from sleep to ask whether they desire the prescribed sleeping pill. Confidentiality issues do occur with the patient’s summary care record. A clinician gazes down upon the seated patient, whose digital hearing-aid is not operational(3) and asks:, ‘Would you mind answering a few questions?' The patient nods, whether in deference, or acknowledging willingness, or indicating ‘Yes, I do mind’. Visiting family and community friends are keen to hear the questions and answers to the psychometric test. Ward patients also crane forward to hear the questions posed, ‘What day of the week is it?’ and ‘Where are you?’ The stress on the patient in front of the gaze of family and onlookers is not unlike the stress on a contestant in Anne Robinson’s television quiz show, ‘The Weakest Link’. The patient does not learn whether or not they were stigmatised as ‘disoriented’. Ironically ‘connected up’ patient records might have informed the patient whether or not they were labelled as ‘disoriented’. Just as augmented reality IT aeroplane cockpits orient pilots to navigate take-off, so augmented reality IT may orient patient’s journey back to health. The patient’s required information may be, ‘What do I have to do to get out of here quickly to have a good meal at home?’ The essence of augmented reality IT is ‘interactivity in real-time’(5). Discussions and conversations with the carer need to be in real time not after the consultant returns from vacation. Giving control of such information back to the patient rather than strengthening and connecting patient records may shorten recovery periods, and hence improve the health trust’s efficiency audit. In one light the above clinical fragment emphasises the need for NHS and researcher efforts to augment patient records by information technology connecting up records among all health carers and especially the patient. In another light the fragment provokes a re-reading of a European health care philosopher (6), who emphasized not just connections, but rather ‘conversations’ in the older sense of ‘dwelling together’, which are elemental to augment the patient’s regaining the equilibrium of health. The NHS may consider improving patient health by augmenting such conversations among the patient and all carers with a small proportion of the nation's information technology funding billions. 1 Bourn J Department of Health: The National Programme for IT in the NHS. Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General. National Audit Office. HC 1173 Session 2005-2006 16 June 2006 2 Greenhalgh T Wood G W Bratan T Stramer K Hinder S Patient’s attitudes to the summary care record and HealthSpace: qualitative study. BMJ 2008; 336:1290-1295 3 Cowie R How Academic Can You Be About Hearing Loss and Deafness http://www.hearingreview.com/issues/articles/2001-10_08.asp 4 Goffman E. Asylums: essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates.1961; New York: Doubleday 5. Azuma, R T. A Survey of Augmented Reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments. 1997 6, 4; 355–385 6 Gadamer HG Treatment and Dialogue in The Enigma of Health:The Art of Healing in a Scientific Age 1996; Trans J Gaiger and N. Walker. Cambridge Polity Press.125-140 Competing interests: None declared |
|||