A survey of validity and utility of electronic patient records in a general practice.

OBJECTIVE: To develop methods of measuring the validity and utility of electronic patient records in general practice. DESIGN: A survey of the main functional areas of a practice and use of independent criteria to measure the validity of the practice database. SETTING: A fully computerised general practice in Skipton, north Yorkshire. SUBJECTS: The records of all registered practice patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Validity of the main functional areas of the practice clinical system. Measures of the completeness, accuracy, validity, and utility of the morbidity data for 15 clinical diagnoses using recognised diagnostic standards to confirm diagnoses and identify further cases. Development of a method and statistical toolkit to validate clinical databases in general practice. RESULTS: The practice electronic patient records were valid, complete, and accurate for prescribed items (99.7%), consultations (98.1%), laboratory tests (100%), hospital episodes (100%), and childhood immunisations (97%). The morbidity data for 15 clinical diagnoses were complete (mean sensitivity=87%) and accurate (mean positive predictive value=96%). The presence of the Read codes for the 15 diagnoses was strongly indicative of the true presence of those conditions (mean likelihood ratio=3917). New interpretations of descriptive statistics are described that can be used to estimate both the number of true cases that are unrecorded and quantify the benefits of validating a clinical database for coded entries. CONCLUSION: This study has developed a method and toolkit for measuring the validity and utility of general practice electronic patient records.

GPs' recognition of, and response to, influences on patients' medicine taking: the implications for communication.

BACKGROUND: Research evidence suggests that patients' beliefs about medicines influence medicine taking. Therefore, it is important that GPs are able to both identify and take account of such beliefs in the consultation. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to explore GPs' awareness of asthma patients' beliefs about medicine, and of the ways in which friends and family, television programmes and the Campaign for Asthma may influence these beliefs. We also wanted to consider how GPs believe they would feel, and their likely behaviour, when a patient refers to these influences in the consultation. METHOD: Four events, drawn from 17 semi-structured interviews previously conducted with patients recently prescribed oral steroids (prednisolone), were used to compose a narrative account of a hypothetical patient's behaviour. The narrative described a series of scenarios to which GPs were asked to respond. It was sent to all GPs in Derbyshire (n = 476). RESULTS: The response rate was 69%. Half judged that the scenarios which presented the patients' beliefs about medicine, the influence of friends and family and the television were not 'realistic'. GPs also reported feeling more 'supportive' and 'sympathetic' towards the Campaign for Asthma as a source of patient information than they were towards opinions based on advice given by patients' family and friends. CONCLUSION: Developing 'common ground' in the consultation will be problematic if GPs are not aware of, and sympathetic towards, the ways in which patients use information from a range of sources to formulate beliefs that then affect their medicine-taking behaviour. GPs should be encouraged to open up their discussions with patients so as to encourage the development of a partnership in which each party is aware of, and respects, the other's point of view.

Reliability and validity of hospital pharmacists' clinical intervention data.

The reliability and validity of pharmacist intervention data documented at a hospital in England were studied. The study involved intervention data recorded from September 1 to December 31 in 1990 (a pilot study), 1991, and 1992 by a total of 23 pharmacists. The interventions in 1990 were coded by a single pharmacist manager and compared with coding by pharmacists of their own interventions during 1991 and 1992. To test for internal reliability of the intervention data, 25% (584) of the 2342 interventions recorded in 1991 and 1992 were randomly sampled after interventions by the 11 pharmacists no longer at the site were eliminated. In September 1993 the 12 remaining pharmacists were asked to recode the interventions they had previously entered. In March 1994 a panel of 12 pharmacists recoded 62 interventions randomly selected from the 684 recoded interventions. Each panel member also assigned financial values to interventions. Medical records corresponding to the 62 recoded interventions were inspected for evidence of the interventions. The distribution of interventions among the drug-use-process (DUP) indicators used in the coding differed significantly between 1990 (when a manager assigned all codes) and 1991 plus 1992 (when pharmacists coded their own interventions). There were similar differences between 1991 and 1992. Results from code-recode and panel testing showed the DUP indicators to be reliable. Clinical outcome indicators were unreliable, as were financial indicators. Medical records verified the occurrence of 50 (81%) of the 62 interventions selected, but in only one case was there evidence that the change in drug therapy was initiated by a pharmacist. The capacity of pharmacists at a British hospital to reliably code interventions was poor.