PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

David Stables

Publications and source records attributed to David Stables.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Patient record access--the time has come.

There are now a number of systems across the world that enables patients to view their electronic health records. These include kiosks that have fingerprint authentication and also net-based access. The paper outlines the approach taken by the UK NHS explains the legal underpinning of access. Starting form the premise that record access is here to stay the paper outlines the research on benefits and risks of record access, concluding that, with simple precautions, record access is safe and affords many benefits to both patients and clinicians. It goes on to consider possible impacts of record access on the way records might be written as a co-produced document and emphasizes that national standards for record sharing need to be written.

Attitude to Computers↗

Automated quality checks on repeat prescribing.

BACKGROUND: Good clinical practice in primary care includes periodic review of repeat prescriptions. Markers of prescriptions that may need review have been described, but manually checking all repeat prescriptions against the markers would be impractical. AIM: To investigate the feasibility of computerising the application of repeat prescribing quality checks to electronic patient records in United Kingdom (UK) primary care. DESIGN OF STUDY: Software performance test against benchmark manual analysis of cross-sectional convenience sample of prescribing documentation. SETTING: Three general practices in Greater Manchester, in the north west of England, during a 4-month period in 2001. METHOD: A machine-readable drug information resource, based on the British National Formulary (BNF) as the 'gold standard' for valid drug indications, was installed in three practices. Software raised alerts for each repeat prescribed item where the electronic patient record contained no valid indication for the medication. Alerts raised by the software in two practices were analysed manually. Clinical reaction to the software was assessed by semi-structured interviews in three practices. RESULTS: There was no valid indication in the electronic medical records for 14.8% of repeat prescribed items. Sixty-two per cent of all alerts generated were incorrect. Forty-three per cent of all incorrect alerts were as a result of errors in the drug information resource, 44% to locally idiosyncratic clinical coding, 8% to the use of the BNF without adaptation as a gold standard, and 5% to the inability of the system to infer diagnoses that, although unrecorded, would be 'obvious' to a clinical reading the record. The interviewed clinicians supported the goals of the software. CONCLUSION: Using electronic records for secondary decision support purposes will benefit from (and may require) both more consistent electronic clinical data collection across multiple sites, and reconciling clinicians' willingness to infer unstated but 'obvious' diagnoses with the machine's inability to do the same.

Clinical Pharmacy Information Systems↗