clinical data extraction and feedback in general practice: a case study from australian primary care

Clicks: 285
ID: 212531
2010
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #40 of 88 articles by views in materials & design

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Background Quality improvement in general practice has increasingly focused on the analysis of its clinical databases to guide its improvement strategies. However, general practitioners (GPs) need to be motivated to extract and review their clinical data, and they need skills to do so. This study examines the initial experience of 15 practices in undertaking clinical data extraction and management and the support they were given by their local division of general practice. Objectives To explore the uptake of data extraction tools in general practice and understand how divisions of general practice can assist with their uptake. Method This study was conducted within a single division of general practice within the south-eastern suburbs of metropolitan Melbourne, Australia. Self-selected practiceswere offered a data extraction program ('tool') free of charge, with ongoing division support. Practice representatives, either GPs, practice nurses or other practice staff members, were given instructions on how to extract data using the data extraction tool. This was followed by discussion with division staff regarding which clinical areas might be focused on. Division staff systematically recorded information about the experience of the practices and collated their clinical data. Results Fifteen practices, representing 69 GPs, participated. The practices chose from the following areas to work on as quality improvement activities: improving data entry; inactivating patient files for those who no longer attended the practice; correcting demographic information; diabetes and coronary heart disease management. The recording of data, according to the extraction tool, was found to be incomplete. For example, one-third of the patients who had HbA1cs recorded were on target, i.e. <7%, but nearly half the patients with diabetes did not have HbA1cs recorded at all. About half the patients with coronary heart disease were not reported as taking aspirin and one-third were not on a statin. Nearly half the patients who had attended their practice in the previous 30 months did not have smoking status recorded. Conclusion While data extraction programs provide GPs with useful tools for examining their clinical databases and identifying clinical practice issues which could be improved, external support, such as that provided by divisions, is helpful. Technical barriers, such as the failure of extraction tools to recognise some data and the failure to comprehensively enter data, are impediments, but in spite of these considerable interest exists in the use of clinical data to improve practice.
Reference Key
schattner2010journalclinical Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Peter Schattner;Mary Saunders;Leslie Stanger;Michele Speak;Kate Russo
Journal materials & design
Year 2010
DOI
10.14236/jhi.v18i3.773
URL
http://hijournal.bcs.org/index.php/jhi/article/view/773
Keywords
data collection informatics medical informatics

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.