PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Deborah C Saltman

Publications and source records attributed to Deborah C Saltman.

4 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

General practitioners' use of computers for prescribing and electronic health records: results from a national survey.

OBJECTIVE: To describe how general practitioners use computers for clinical purposes. DESIGN: Mail survey of a cross-sectional national stratified random sample of 3000 GPs in primary care settings between 10 October and 31 December 2005. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Use of computers, and use of computerised clinical functions such as prescribing, medication checking, generating health summaries, running recall systems, and writing progress notes. RESULTS: Of 1186 GPs responding (39.5% response rate), 90% used a clinical software package. GPs used clinical packages for prescribing (98%), checking for drug-drug interactions (88%), recording a reason for prescribing (65%), to order laboratory tests (85%), run recall systems (78%), and record progress notes (64%). Less frequently used functions included generating lists of patients needing vaccines (43%) and taking the same medication (39%). Less than 20% of GPs who used a clinical package accessed computerised information during the consultation. CONCLUSIONS: Australian general practice has achieved near-universal clinical computerisation. Electronic prescribing alone has probably improved efficiency and quality of care, and reduced medication errors. Increasing the use of other functions, such as accessing online decision support and maintaining registries of patients, is likely to lead to further health gains, especially in managing chronic conditions.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

The Threats to Australian Patient Safety (TAPS) study: incidence of reported errors in general practice.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of errors anonymously reported by general practitioners in NSW. DESIGN: The Threats to Australian Patient Safety (TAPS) study used anonymous reporting of errors by GPs via a secure web-based questionnaire for 12 months from October 2003. SETTING: General practices in NSW from three groupings: major urban centres (RRMA 1), large regional areas (RRMA 2-3), and rural and remote areas (RRMA 4-7). PARTICIPANTS: 84 GPs from a stratified random sample of the population of 4666 NSW GPs - 41 (49%) from RRMA 1, 22 (26%) from RRMA 2-3, and 21 (25%) from RRMA 4-7. Participants were representative of the GP source population of 4666 doctors in NSW (Medicare items billed, participant age and sex). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total number of error reports and incidence of reported errors per Medicare patient encounter item and per patient seen per year. RESULTS: 84 GPs submitted 418 error reports, claimed 490 864 Medicare patient encounter items, and saw 166 569 individual patients over 12 months. The incidence of reported error per Medicare patient encounter item per year was 0.078% (95% CI, 0.076%-0.080%). The incidence of reported errors per patient seen per year was 0.240% (95% CI, 0.235%-0.245%). No significant difference was seen in error reporting frequency between RRMA groupings. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study describing the incidence of GP-reported errors in a representative sample. When an anonymous reporting system is provided, about one error is reported for every 1000 Medicare items related to patient encounters billed, and about two errors are reported for every 1000 individual patients seen by a GP.

Family Practice↗
PubMed2006

Dosing frequencies in general practice--Whose decision and why?

BACKGROUND: Little is known about patient preference for dosing frequency (daily, weekly or monthly). Patient preferences and attitudes among women over 60 years of age were studied. Condition, medication experience and perceived control were assessed against preference. METHODS: One hundred and seven Australian general practitioners each recruited approximately 10 patients within three categories: those with preventable conditions (prevention of osteoporotic fracture), other chronic conditions, and acute or no conditions. RESULTS: While most patients (67%) preferred starting medications daily, differences were observed between weekly and monthly preference. Chronic/acute groups and those experienced in daily/intermittent medication preferred starting and continuing monthly. Experience of weekly preventive medication resulted in a preference for weekly dosing. Those women with more perceived control of decision making had a preference for monthly dosing. DISCUSSION: Patients prefer dosing schedules they have experienced. Condition type and perceived control in decision making also affect preferences. This study provides the first evidence about how patients determine preferences in dosing frequencies. It can assist GPs in their medication choice and patient education.

Aged↗