Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
BMC Health Services Research 2014-Dec

Sharing of clinical data in a maternity setting: how do paper hand-held records and electronic health records compare for completeness?

Samo registrirani korisnici mogu prevoditi članke
Prijava Registriraj se
Veza se sprema u međuspremnik
Glenda Hawley
Claire Jackson
Julie Hepworth
Shelley A Wilkinson

Ključne riječi

Sažetak

BACKGROUND

Historically, the paper hand-held record (PHR) has been used for sharing information between hospital clinicians, general practitioners and pregnant women in a maternity shared-care environment. Recently in alignment with a National e-health agenda, an electronic health record (EHR) was introduced at an Australian tertiary maternity service to replace the PHR for collection and transfer of data. The aim of this study was to examine and compare the completeness of clinical data collected in a PHR and an EHR.

METHODS

We undertook a comparative cohort design study to determine differences in completeness between data collected from maternity records in two phases. Phase 1 data were collected from the PHR and Phase 2 data from the EHR. Records were compared for completeness of best practice variables collected The primary outcome was the presence of best practice variables and the secondary outcomes were the differences in individual variables between the records.

RESULTS

Ninety-four percent of paper medical charts were available in Phase 1 and 100% of records from an obstetric database in Phase 2. No PHR or EHR had a complete dataset of best practice variables. The variables with significant improvement in completeness of data documented in the EHR, compared with the PHR, were urine culture, glucose tolerance test, nuchal screening, morphology scans, folic acid advice, tobacco smoking, illicit drug assessment and domestic violence assessment (p = 0.001). Additionally the documentation of immunisations (pertussis, hepatitis B, varicella, fluvax) were markedly improved in the EHR (p = 0.001). The variables of blood pressure, proteinuria, blood group, antibody, rubella and syphilis status, showed no significant differences in completeness of recording.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first paper to report on the comparison of clinical data collected on a PHR and EHR in a maternity shared-care setting. The use of an EHR demonstrated significant improvements to the collection of best practice variables. Additionally, the data in an EHR were more available to relevant clinical staff with the appropriate log-in and more easily retrieved than from the PHR. This study contributes to an under-researched area of determining data quality collected in patient records.

Pridružite se našoj
facebook stranici

Najkompletnija baza ljekovitog bilja potpomognuta znanošću

  • Radi na 55 jezika
  • Biljni lijekovi potpomognuti znanošću
  • Prepoznavanje bilja slikom
  • Interaktivna GPS karta - označite bilje na mjestu (uskoro)
  • Pročitajte znanstvene publikacije povezane s vašom pretragom
  • Pretražite ljekovito bilje po učincima
  • Organizirajte svoje interese i budite u toku s istraživanjem vijesti, kliničkim ispitivanjima i patentima

Upišite simptom ili bolest i pročitajte o biljkama koje bi mogle pomoći, unesite travu i pogledajte bolesti i simptome protiv kojih se koristi.
* Svi podaci temelje se na objavljenim znanstvenim istraživanjima

Google Play badgeApp Store badge