scholarly journals Primary Care Patient Records in the United Kingdom: Past, Present, and Future Research Priorities

10.2196/11293 ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (12) ◽  
pp. e11293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian McMillan ◽  
Robert Eastham ◽  
Benjamin Brown ◽  
Richard Fitton ◽  
David Dickinson
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Primary Care Patient ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Care Patient ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Patient Records ◽  
The United Kingdom

scholarly journals Primary Care Patient Records in the United Kingdom: Past, Present, and Future Research Priorities (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian McMillan ◽  
Robert Eastham ◽  
Benjamin Brown ◽  
Richard Fitton ◽  
David Dickinson
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Primary Care Patient ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Care Patient ◽  
Patient Record ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Form And Function ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
And Function

UNSTRUCTURED This paper briefly outlines the history of the medical record and the factors contributing to the adoption of computerized records in primary care in the United Kingdom. It discusses how both paper-based and electronic health records have traditionally been used in the past and goes on to examine how enabling patients to access their own primary care record online is changing the form and function of the patient record. In addition, it looks at the evidence for the benefits of Web-based access and discusses some of the challenges faced in this transition. Finally, some suggestions are made regarding the future of the patient record and research questions that need to be addressed to help deepen our understanding of how they can be used more beneficially by both patients and clinicians.

scholarly journals Identifying primary care patient safety research priorities in the UK: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e020870 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Lauren Morris ◽  
Susan Jill Stocks ◽  
Rahul Alam ◽  
Sian Taylor ◽  
Carly Rolfe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Patient Safety ◽  
National Survey ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Primary Care Patient ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Care Patient ◽  
Nominal Group ◽  
Safety Research ◽  
Research Questions

ObjectivesTo identify the top 10 unanswered research questions for primary care patient safety research.DesignA modified nominal group technique.SettingUK.ParticipantsAnyone with experience of primary care including: patients, carers and healthcare professionals. 341 patients and 86 healthcare professionals submitted questions.Main outcomesA top 10, and top 30, future research questions for primary care patient safety.Results443 research questions were submitted by 341 patients and 86 healthcare professionals, through a national survey. After checking for relevance and rephrasing, a total of 173 questions were collated into themes. The themes were largely focused on communication, team and system working, interfaces across primary and secondary care, medication, self-management support and technology. The questions were then prioritised through a national survey, the top 30 questions were taken forward to the final prioritisation workshop. The top 10 research questions focused on the most vulnerable in society, holistic whole-person care, safer communication and coordination between care providers, work intensity, continuity of care, suicide risk, complex care at home and confidentiality.ConclusionsThis study was the first national prioritisation exercise to identify patient and healthcare professional priorities for primary care patient safety research. The research priorities identified a range of important gaps in the existing evidence to inform everyday practice to address primary care patient safety.

scholarly journals Automated detection of patients with dementia whose symptoms have been identified in primary care but have no formal diagnosis: a retrospective case–control study using electronic primary care records

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e039248
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Ford ◽  
Joanne Sheppard ◽  
Seb Oliver ◽  
Philip Rooney ◽  
Sube Banerjee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Case Control Study ◽  
Primary Care Patient ◽  
Care Patient ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Service Planning ◽  
Patient Records ◽  
Diagnosis Code ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
Control Study

ObjectivesUK statistics suggest only two-thirds of patients with dementia get a diagnosis recorded in primary care. General practitioners (GPs) report barriers to formally diagnosing dementia, so some patients may be known by GPs to have dementia but may be missing a diagnosis in their patient record. We aimed to produce a method to identify these ‘known but unlabelled’ patients with dementia using data from primary care patient records.DesignRetrospective case–control study using routinely collected primary care patient records from Clinical Practice Research Datalink.SettingUK general practice.ParticipantsEnglish patients aged >65 years, with a coded diagnosis of dementia recorded in 2000–2012 (cases), matched 1:1 with patients with no diagnosis code for dementia (controls).InterventionsEight coded and nine keyword concepts indicating symptoms, screening tests, referrals and care for dementia recorded in the 5 years before diagnosis. We trialled machine learning classifiers to discriminate between cases and controls (logistic regression, naïve Bayes, random forest).Primary and secondary outcomesThe outcome variable was dementia diagnosis code; the accuracy of classifiers was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC); the order of features contributing to discrimination was examined.Results93 426 patients were included; the median age was 83 years (64.8% women). Three classifiers achieved high discrimination and performed very similarly. AUCs were 0.87–0.90 with coded variables, rising to 0.90–0.94 with keywords added. Feature prioritisation was different for each classifier; commonly prioritised features were Alzheimer’s prescription, dementia annual review, memory loss and dementia keywords.ConclusionsIt is possible to detect patients with dementia who are known to GPs but unlabelled with a diagnostic code, with a high degree of accuracy in electronic primary care record data. Using keywords from clinic notes and letters improves accuracy compared with coded data alone. This approach could improve identification of dementia cases for record-keeping, service planning and delivery of good quality care.

scholarly journals Nature and type of patient-reported safety incidents in primary care: cross-sectional survey of patients from Australia and England

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e042551
Author(s):  
Andrea L Hernan ◽  
Sally J Giles ◽  
Andrew Carson-Stevens ◽  
Mark Morgan ◽  
Penny Lewis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Patient ◽  
Care Patient ◽  
System Level ◽  
Service Improvement ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Contributory Factors ◽  
Safety Incident ◽  
Patient Reported

BackgroundPatient engagement in safety has shown positive effects in preventing or reducing adverse events and potential safety risks. Capturing and utilising patient-reported safety incident data can be used for service learning and improvement.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to characterise the nature of patient-reported safety incidents in primary care.DesignSecondary analysis of two cross sectional studies.ParticipantsAdult patients from Australian and English primary care settings.MeasuresPatients’ self-reported experiences of safety incidents were captured using the validated Primary Care Patient Measure of Safety questionnaire. Qualitative responses to survey items were analysed and categorised using the Primary Care Patient Safety Classification System. The frequency and type of safety incidents, contributory factors, and patient and system level outcomes are presented.ResultsA total of 1329 patients (n=490, England; n=839, Australia) completed the questionnaire. Overall, 5.3% (n=69) of patients reported a safety incident over the preceding 12 months. The most common incident types were administration incidents (n=27, 31%) (mainly delays in accessing a physician) and incidents involving diagnosis and assessment (n=16, 18.4%). Organisation of care accounted for 27.6% (n=29) of the contributory factors identified in the safety incidents. Staff factors (n=13, 12.4%) was the second most commonly reported contributory factor. Where an outcome could be determined, patient inconvenience (n=24, 28.6%) and clinical harm (n=21, 25%) (psychological distress and unpleasant experience) were the most frequent.ConclusionsThe nature and outcomes of patient-reported incidents differ markedly from those identified in studies of staff-reported incidents. The findings from this study emphasise the importance of capturing patient-reported safety incidents in the primary care setting. The patient perspective can complement existing sources of safety intelligence with the potential for service improvement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document