Comparisons between written and computerised patient histories. Issue 6591 (18th July 1987)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- Comparisons between written and computerised patient histories. Issue 6591 (18th July 1987)
- Main Title:
- Comparisons between written and computerised patient histories.
- Authors:
- Quaak, M J
Westerman, R F
van Bemmel, J H - Abstract:
- Abstract : Patient histories were obtained from 99 patients in three different ways: by a computerised patient interview (patient record), by the usual written interview (medical record), and by the transcribed record, which was a computerised version of the medical record. Patient complaints, diagnostic hypotheses, observer and record variations, and patients' and doctors' opinions were analysed for each record, and records were compared with the final diagnosis. About 40% of the data in the patient record were not present in the medical record. Two thirds of the patients said that they could express all or most of their complaints in the patient record. The doctors found that the medical record expressed the main complaints better (52%) than the patient record (15%) but that diagnostic hypotheses were more certain in the patient record (38%) than in the medical one (26%). The number of diagnostic hypotheses in the patient record was about 20% higher than that in the medical record. Intraobserver agreement (51%) was better than interobserver agreement (32%), while the inter-record agreement varied from 25% (between the medical and patient records) to 35% (between the transcribed and patient records). One third of final diagnoses were seen in the medical record, with 29% and 22% for the transcribed and patient records, respectively. Interobserver agreement in the final diagnosis was 35%. The results of the study suggest that computerised history taking is suitable forAbstract : Patient histories were obtained from 99 patients in three different ways: by a computerised patient interview (patient record), by the usual written interview (medical record), and by the transcribed record, which was a computerised version of the medical record. Patient complaints, diagnostic hypotheses, observer and record variations, and patients' and doctors' opinions were analysed for each record, and records were compared with the final diagnosis. About 40% of the data in the patient record were not present in the medical record. Two thirds of the patients said that they could express all or most of their complaints in the patient record. The doctors found that the medical record expressed the main complaints better (52%) than the patient record (15%) but that diagnostic hypotheses were more certain in the patient record (38%) than in the medical one (26%). The number of diagnostic hypotheses in the patient record was about 20% higher than that in the medical record. Intraobserver agreement (51%) was better than interobserver agreement (32%), while the inter-record agreement varied from 25% (between the medical and patient records) to 35% (between the transcribed and patient records). One third of final diagnoses were seen in the medical record, with 29% and 22% for the transcribed and patient records, respectively. Interobserver agreement in the final diagnosis was 35%. The results of the study suggest that computerised history taking is suitable for certain patients in addition to, and not as a substitute for, the oral interview with a doctor. … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- BMJ. Volume 295:Issue 6591(1987)
- Journal:
- BMJ
- Issue:
- Volume 295:Issue 6591(1987)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 295, Issue 6591 (1987)
- Year:
- 1987
- Volume:
- 295
- Issue:
- 6591
- Issue Sort Value:
- 1987-0295-6591-0000
- Page Start:
- 184
- Page End:
- 190
- Publication Date:
- 1987-07-18
- Subjects:
- Medicine -- Periodicals
Medicine -- Periodicals
Medicine
Periodicals
610 - Journal URLs:
- http://www.bmj.com/archive ↗
http://www.jstor.org/journals/09598138.html ↗
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/3/ ↗
http://www.bmj.com/bmj/ ↗
http://www.bmj.com/archive ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1136/bmj.295.6591.184 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 0007-1447
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library HMNTS - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 26205.xml