PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 7373256

Methodological, technical, and ethical issues of a computerized data system.

Abstract

This report examines some methodological, technical, and ethical issues which need to be addressed in designing and implementing a valid and reliable computerized clinical data base. The report focuses on the data collection system used by four residency based family health centers, affiliated with the University of Massachusetts Medical Center. It is suggested that data reliability and validity can be maximized by: (1) standardizing encounter forms at affiliated health centers to eliminate recording biases and ensure data comparability; (2) using forms with a diagnosis checklist to reduce coding errors and increase the number of diagnoses recorded per encounter; (3) developing uniform diagnostic criteria; (4) identifying sources of error, including discrepancies of clinical data as recorded in medical records, encounter forms, and the computer; and (5) improving provider cooperation in recording data by distributing data summaries which reinforce the data's applicability to service provision. Potential applications of the data for research purposes are restricted by personnel and computer costs, confidentiality considerations, programming related issues, and, most importantly, health center priorities, largely focused on patient care, not research.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C A Rice, M A Godkin, R J Catlin. 1980. Methodological, technical, and ethical issues of a computerized data system.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7373256/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Evaluation of a computerized polysomnographic system.

Computerized polysomnographic systems have came into common use in sleep laboratories around the world. Despite potential advantages over standard paper polysomnography, these computerized systems have been minimally evaluated as to accuracy, analysis time, or cost effectiveness when compared to paper. We evaluated the Healthdyne ALICE 3 system for comparability to paper polysomnography in sleep quantification and technician analysis time. Fifty patients were recorded simultaneously both on paper and on the ALICE 3 system and analyzed blindly with summary data from these records being quantified and compared. Five additional patients were studied for epoch-by-epoch analysis. Score-rescore assessments were accomplished for both groups. The results indicate that when allowed to autoscore, this computerized system produced substantial errors in sleep staging (REM sleep time 56.4 + 4.9 minutes vs 73.2 + 8.4 minutes for paper versus computer). This was the case for respiratory (AHI of 26.5 + 4.3 vs 15.3 + 2.6 for paper vs computer) and arousal assessment as well. However, with editing, similar results to those obtained with paper were achieved (REM sleep time -56.4 + 4.9 vs 59.0 + 4.6; AHI -26.5 + 4.3 vs 26.1 + 4.7 for paper and computer respectively), with differences rarely exceeding score-rescore discrepancies. Analysis time was substantially reduced by use of the computer (172.6 + 9.9 vs 79.7 + 4.8 minutes for paper vs computer). Epoch-by-epoch analysis revealed a trend to score toward wakefulness or lighter sleep on computer compared to paper although the differences were small. Respiratory, arousal and PLM scoring were quite similar. In conclusion, this study suggests that the ALICE 3 system with editing can produce results similar to those obtained with paper.

Computers