PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 6694882

A computerized recall system for office practice.

Abstract

A computerized system that has been in use in a small group practice since 1980 is described. Although many pediatricians have begun to use personal computers in office practice, most accounts of their experience to date relate primarily to the role of computers in facilitating administrative tasks, such as billing. The procedures involved in establishing the system are described, along with details about the nature of the programming concepts and several of the most important applications. A particular focus was to enable the computer to be used to improve the follow-up of patients with problems requiring recall visits, eg, immunizations. The results indicate that the percent of patients judged to be overdue for immunizations fell from 15.4% prior to the introduction of the computer to 1.3% and 4.3%, respectively, in the following 2 years. The proportion of children with other health problems requiring follow-up, 44.5% of the entire active practice population are also described. It is concluded that the computerized system can enhance the quality of patient care and greatly facilitate office-based research.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D Leduc, H Loeser, L Hercz, I B Pless. 1984. A computerized recall system for office practice.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6694882/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Waiting in the emergency department.

AIMS: To examine waiting times, reasons for waiting, and patient knowledge of those reasons, in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: Data were collected on patients presenting to the emergency department over 7 weeks. Those who waited more than 30 minutes in the waiting room or more than 2 hours in the total department were studied further. RESULTS: Thirty seven percent exceeded the times above (group A). Mean times for this group were 175 mins. Only 7% stayed in the waiting room more than 30 minutes. Delays were related to doctors (42%), waiting for tests and results (16%), prolonged treatment and assessment (12%), and other reasons (30%). Only 47% were clear about why they were waiting. CONCLUSIONS: Some extended waiting is appropriate. Unnecessary delays are common and can be avoided by attention to facilities, improving deployment of staff, and removal of bottlenecks in testing procedures. Waiting time in emergency departments will alter as observation wards and definitive treatments by emergency specialists increase. The public will need to be fully informed as these changes take place.

Appointments and Schedules