PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10249783

Are you in control?

P Murtagh
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Overcramped conditions and lack of available storage space are usually the instigating factors for implementation of a micrographics system, but there are many other benefits to be gained, It is critical that a system be well planned and carefully researched to assure that you are indeed in control. If your only goal is to microfilm records to make more space, this space will also be "jammed" within a short period of time and you will have accomplished nothing. A good micrographics system can, and should, improve the integrity of the records, in addition to saving space. It should and will provide control of the records, while at the same time making the information readily available to all users. The system can be combined with an existing computer system within the facility and/or be shared with other departments. An ill-planned micrographics system will ultimately lead to one that is neither cost-effective nor efficient.

Explore related subjects

Hospital DepartmentsMedical Records Department, HospitalMicrofilmingJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

P Murtagh. 1981. Are you in control?. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10249783/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Establishment of a stroke unit in a district hospital: review of experience.

BACKGROUND: The experience and outcomes of co-locating acute stroke and stroke rehabilitation care in a district hospital were reviewed. METHOD: Information for patients admitted to Blacktown and Mt Druitt Hospitals before and after setting up an acute stroke unit (SU) (12 months data for each period), including mortality and length of stay (LOS) at the hospital were obtained from various sources, including the diagnosis-related group and subacute and non-acute casemix databases. RESULTS: There was a significant reduction of mortality (18 vs 10%; P = 0.01) and reduced total LOS (46 vs 39 days; P = 0.01) with similar functional outcomes in the post-SU period. Fifty per cent of patients were unable to access the acute SU. Patients admitted into the SU had lower mortality (5 vs 14%; P = 0.01) and were also discharged from hospital earlier (35 vs 54 days; P = 0.01) than patients admitted into general wards during the post-SU period. Thirty-four per cent of patients received rehabilitation within the rehabilitation facility in the post-SU period compared with 19% in the pre-SU period. CONCLUSION: The Blacktown experience showed the feasibility of establishing a co-located SU within rehabilitation facility with good outcomes as illustrated by the significant reduction in the stroke mortality, a reduction in the total LOS and an increase in the number of patients receiving rehabilitation post-stroke.

Hospital Departments↗