Advantages of Long Observation in Episode-oriented Electronic Patient Records in Family Practice

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Abstract:

From 1985–2000, 58 Dutch family physicians (FPs) of the Transition Project collected ICPC-coded data on 47, 2451 episodes of care, first in paper records for direct encounters only, later with a complete electronic patient record (EPR) for all (direct and indirect) encounters. Based on these data, the effects of a long observation period and the inclusion of all encounters (both direct and indirect) in the EPR were studied. Long observation periods in EPRs appear to have important advantages for patient documentation and the assessment of the content of family practice. Comparison of data from a one-year versus a four-year observation period showed a shift in utilization rates. In a long observation period, visiting patients appeared to make less demand on care, while the content of the FP’s care for selected chronic diseases was reflected more realistically. The inclusion of all indirect encounters in an EPR (as compared to the previous inclusion of direct encounters only) resulted in more than twice the number of coded entries per listed patient, and thus led to a major shift in perspective on the FP’s involvement in patient care.

• REFERENCES

• 1 Bentzen N. An international glossary for general/family practice. Fam Pract 1995; 12: 341-69.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Van der Lei J, Beckers WPA. eds. Strategic Alliances between Patient Documentation and Medical Informatics. Proceedings AMICE 95. Rotterdam: VMBI/TMI Office; 1995
  Google Scholar
• 3 Lamberts H, Hofmans-Okkes I. The generic patient record: an alliance between patient documentation and medical informatics [editorial]. Method Inform Med 1996; 35: 5-7.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Van Bemmel JH, McCray AT. eds. IMIA Yearbook of Medical Informatics 1995: the Computer Based Patient Record. Stuttgart, New York: Schattauer; 1995
  Google Scholar
• 5 De Maeseneer J, Beolchi L. eds. Telematics in Primary Care in Europe. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics (volume 20). Amsterdam: IOS Press; 1995
  Google Scholar
• 6 Pringle M, Ward P, Chilvers C. Assessment of the completeness and accuracy of computer medical records in four practices committed to recording data on computer. Br J Gen Pract 1995; 45: 537-41.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Sullivan F, Mitchell E. Has general practitioner computing made a difference to patient care? A systematic review of published reports. Br Med J 1995; 311: 848-52.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Tange HJ. The paper-based patient record: is it really so bad?. Comp Meth Progr Biomed 1995; 48: 127-31.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 McDonald CJ. The barriers to electronic medical record systems and how to overcome them. JAMIA 1997; 4: 213-21.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Van der Lei J, Moorman PW, Musen MA. Electronic patient records in medical practice: a multidisciplinary endeavor. Method Inform Med 1999; 38: 287-8.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Lenhart JG, Honess K, Covington D, Johnson KE. An analysis of trends, perceptions, and use patterns of electronic medical records among US family practice residency programs. Fam Med 2000; 32: 109-14.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Ornstein S. Electronic medical records in family practice: the time is now. J Fam Pract 1997; 44: 45-8.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Van der Lei J, Duisterhout JS, Westerhof H. et al. The introduction of computer-based patient records in the Netherlands. Ann Int Med 1993; 119: 1036-41.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Knottnerus A. The role of the electronic patient record in the development of general practice in the Netherlands. Method Inform Med 1999; 38: 350-4.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Vlug AE, Van der Lei J, Mosseveld BMTh. et al. Postmarketing surveillance based on electronic patient records: the IPCI project. Method Inform Med 1999; 38: 339-44.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Van Damme RAE. ed. Toelichting WCIAHIS Referentiemodel 1995 (status op 1 november 1999). Utrecht: Nederlands Huisartsen Genootschap; 1999
  Google Scholar
• 17 ICPC-2.. International Classification of Primary Care. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1998
  Google Scholar
• 18 Okkes IM, Jamoulle M, Lamberts H, Bentzen N. ICPC-2-E. The electronic version of ICPC-2. Differences with the printed version and the consequences. Fam Pract 2000; 7: 101-6.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Lamberts H, Wood M. eds. ICPC. International Classification of Primary Care. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1987
  Google Scholar
• 20 Lamberts H, Hofmans-Okkes I. Episode of care. A core concept in family practice. J Fam Pract 1996; 42: 161-7.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Iggulden P. Towards an ‘Episode of Care’ approach: A Project Briefing. Winchester: NHS; 2000
  Google Scholar
• 22 Okkes IM, Oskam SK, Lamberts H. Van Klacht naar Diagnose. Episodegegevens uit de Huisartspraktijk. Bussum: Coutinho; 1998
  Google Scholar
• 23 McCormick A, Fleming D, Charlton J. Morbidity Statistics from General Practice. Fourth National Study 1991-1992. London: HMSO; 1995
  Google Scholar
• 24 The European Study of Referrals from Primary to Secondary Care.. Report to the Concerted Action Committee of Health Services Research for the European Community. Occasional paper 56. London: R Coll Gen Pract; 1992
  Google Scholar
• 25 Lamberts H, Wood M, Hofmans-Okkes I. eds. The International Classification of Primary Care in the European Community. With a Multilanguage Layer. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1993
  Google Scholar
• 26 Health Statistics in the Nordic Countries. Copenhagen: NOMESCO; 1998
  Google Scholar
• 27 Bridges-Webb C, Britt H, Miles DA. et al. Morbidity and treatment in general practice in Australia. Med J Aust 1992; 157: Suppl 19 Oct: S1-S56.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Veltman M. Huisartsgeneeskundige zorgepisoden. Analyse van een zevenjaarsbestand [Thesis University of Amsterdam]. Lelystad: Meditekst; 1995
  Google Scholar
• 29 Donaldson MS, Yordy KD, Lohr KN, Vanselow NA. eds. Primary Care: America’s Health in a New Era. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1996
  Google Scholar
• 30 Meijer JS. Zicht op ziekte. De classificatie van ziekten en gezondheidsproblemen in de huisartsgeneeskunde [Thesis University of Amsterdam]. Amsterdam: Thesis; 1998
  Google Scholar
• 31 ICD-10.. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and related Health Problems. Tenth Revision. Vol. 1. Geneva: WHO; 1992
  Google Scholar
• 32 Van Boven C, Dijksterhuis PH, Lamberts H. Defensive testing in Dutch family practice. Is the grass greener on the other side of the ocean?. J Fam Pract 1997; 44: 468-72.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 33 OECD Health Data 99. A Comparative Analysis of 29 Countries. Paris: OECD Health Policy Unit; 2000. (CD-ROM).
  Google Scholar
• 34 De Maeseneer J, De Prins L, Heyerick JP. Home visits in Belgium: a multivariate analysis. Eur J Gen Pract 1999; 5: 11-4.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 35 Tsuda T, Aoyama H, Froom J. Primary health care in Japan and the United States. Soc Sci Med 1994; 38: 489-95.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 36 Lamberts H. Episodes of care in Japan, Poland, and the Netherlands. Paper presented at the 27th annual meeting of NAPCRG, San Diego: 1999
  Google Scholar
• 37 Schlaud M, Brenner MH, Hoopmann M, Schwartz FW. Approaches to the denominator in practice-based epidemiology: a critical overview. J Epidemiol Community Health 1998; 52 Suppl 1 13S-19S.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 38 Morris AD, Boyle DIR, MacAlpine R. et al., for the DARTS/MEMO Collaboration.. The diabetes audit and research in Tayside Scotland (DARTS) study: electronic record linkage to create a diabetes register. Br Med J 1997; 315: 524-8.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 39 Branger PJ, Van’t Hooft A, Van der Wouden JC. et al. Shared care for diabetes. Supporting communication between primary and secondary care. Int J Med Inf 1999; 53: 133-42.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar