To analyse the technical quality of electronic patient records in relation to legislation and to evaluate their quality associated with the quality of consultations as rated by patients and GPs.
Cross-sectional study of electronic patient records.
Four primary healthcare (PHC) centres in Finland using three different electronic patient record systems.
Patient records of 175 PHC consultations by 50 GPs, rated as the best (n=86) and the worst (n=89) of a total of 2191 consultations.
Documentation of records compared with legislation, the general informative value of records, and its relation to the experienced quality of consultations and to the electronic system employed.
Reason for encounter was mentioned in 79% of cases and patient history in 32%. An acute problem was described moderately well or well in 84%, examination findings in 62%, medical problem or diagnosis in 90%, and treatment in 95% of cases. Medication was documented adequately in 38% of the cases where medication was documented. Concerning general informative value, 18% were assessed as poor, 62% as moderate, and 20% as good. No correspondence was found between experienced quality of consultation and general informative value in the patient records. The quality of patient records was found to change according to the electronic system employed.
Finnish patient records are inadequate documents of consultations and below the standard of that country's legislation. Developing better models of recording would guarantee a higher quality of work.
Notes
Cites: J Fam Pract. 2002 Jul;51(7):636-4112160503
Cites: Fam Pract. 2003 Apr;20(2):173-712651792
Cites: BMJ. 2003 May 17;326(7398):107012750210
Cites: BMJ. 2003 Jun 28;326(7404):1439-4312829558
Cites: Scand J Prim Health Care. 2004 Sep;22(3):168-7315370794
Cites: J Assoc Acad Minor Phys. 2001 Jul;12(3):125-811851200
Cites: Arch Fam Med. 1995 Aug;4(8):698-7057620600
Cites: Scand J Prim Health Care. 2007 Mar;25(1):27-3217354156
Cites: Scand J Prim Health Care. 2007 Sep;25(3):131-217846929
Cites: J Am Board Fam Pract. 2000 Sep-Oct;13(5):338-4811001004
Cites: Curationis. 1998 Sep;21(3):8-1311040583
Cites: Int J Qual Health Care. 2004 Oct;16(5):407-1615375102