Abstract
Objectives: To appraise findings from studies examining the impact of computers on primary care consultations.
Design: Systematic review of world literature from 1980 to 1997.
Data sources: 5475 references were identified from electronic databases (Medline, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Index of Scientific and Technical Proceedings, Embase, OCLC FirstSearch Proceedings), bibliographies, books, identified articles, and by authors active in the field. 1892 eligible abstracts were independently rated, and 89 studies met the inclusion criteria.
Main outcome measures: Effect on doctors' performance and patient outcomes; attitudes towards computerisation.
Results: 61 studies examined effects of computers on practitioners' performance, 17 evaluated their impact on patient outcome, and 20 studied practitioners' or patients' attitudes. Computer use during consultations lengthened the consultation. Reminder systems for preventive tasks and disease management improved process rates, although some returned to pre-intervention levels when reminders were stopped. Use of computers for issuing prescriptions increased prescribing of generic drugs, and use of computers for test ordering led to cost savings and fewer unnecessary tests. There were no negative effects on those patient outcomes evaluated. Doctors and patients were generally positive about use of computers, but issues of concern included their impact on privacy, the doctor-patient relationship, cost, time, and training needs.
Conclusions: Primary care computing systems can improve practitioner performance, particularly for health promotion interventions. This may be at the expense of patient initiated activities, making many practitioners suspicious of the negative impact on relationships with patients. There remains a dearth of evidence evaluating effects on patient outcomes.
Footnotes
-
Funding This study was funded by a grant from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Executive Health Department (K/OPR/2/2D300).
-
Competing interests None declared.
-
References to the studies reviewed and tables giving details of methods and results appear on the BMJ's website. This article is part of the BMJ's trial of open peer review, and documentation relating to this also appears on the website
- Accepted 18 September 2000
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10
Published 16 May 2012
Re: Outcomes of elective induction of labour compared with expectant management: population based study
Published 16 May 2012
Re: Outcomes of elective induction of labour compared with expectant management: population based study
Published 16 May 2012
Re: Why the US healthcare system is failing, and what might rescue it
Published 16 May 2012
Re: Risk of cardiovascular serious adverse events associated with varenicline use for tobacco cessation: systematic review and meta-analysis
Published 16 May 2012
Most responses
Is spending on proton beam therapy for cancer going too far, too fast? (11 responses)
Published 17 Apr 2012 - 23:32
What are the benefits of an early diagnosis? (8 responses)
Published 18 Apr 2012
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (8 responses)
Published 2 May 2012
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21