PubMed · 9503733
Forms in general practice. Paper war or paper tiger?
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To measure GP attitudes to forms in general practice, particularly the common and important ones, and to record the frequency of their use. DESIGN: Qualitative and quantitative methods were used. The former included focus group discussions (three groups) and telephone interviews (25 GPs) and the latter included a questionnaire sent to a random sample of 500 Australian GPs along with a data collection form to record the use of forms during a 3 week survey period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To describe current problems GPs encounter in completing forms, to obtain recommendations on how these problems could be overcome, and to document the use of forms in general practice. RESULTS: GPs believe that there are significant frustrations with existing forms, including uncertainties about the precise information that some questions request, the length of forms and who is responsible for payment. However, GPs distinguish between the design of forms and their content and recognise greater problems with government entitlement applications than with forms originating from non government sources. Professional bodies such as the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners should have input into the construction of forms. CONCLUSION: Reform in this area would be helpful given that inaccurate data are likely to be collected if forms are inadequate. However, there are barriers to reform, including the multiplicity of forms and the laws which govern them. The introduction of computerised forms may force both the profession and the organisations responsible for their production to rethink what are their essential features.
Explore related subjects
Keep this discovery
Explore connections, maps & timelines
P Schattner. 1998. Forms in general practice. Paper war or paper tiger?. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9503733/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.