Cited by 26Medical Coding and Health InformationElectronic Health Records SystemsPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Can general practice data be used for needs assessment and health care planning in an inner-London district?

Sarah Scobie, Ian Basnett, Peter McCartney·1995·Journal of Public Health

Abstract

Background The development of primary care led commissioning will increase the need for practice-based information on health and morbidity, and the NHS information strategy recommends that routinely collected health and morbidity information held on general practice computer systems should be use to inform local health needs assessment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of information in six computerized practices. Methods A comparison was carried out of the recording of registration and social information, health risk factors, medication and record on consultations on the computer and in the manual records for a sample of patients, with an audit of morbidity coding by computer. A comparison was made of computerized disease registers with prescribing for diseases. Results Computer disease registers identified over 90 percent of diabetic patients on medication, 67 percent of asthmatics, 61 percent of epileptics, and 48 percent of patients with angina. Computer recording of problems was inconsistent; practices which recorded clinical information from every consultation did not have substantially more complete disease registers. Over 90 percent of encounters and prescriptions were computerized, but there was bias in recording consultation problems. Blood pressure, smoking, alcohol, weight and height were recorded for over 50 percent of patients aged 15-74, and computerized for 79 percent (291/370) for height, but only 56 percent (274/488) for the most recent bloo…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a043166

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Scobie, S., Basnett, I., & McCartney, P.
Affiliations
Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Venue
Journal of Public Health
Published
1995-12
Volume
17
Issue
4
Pages
475-83
ISSN
  • 0943-1853 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-3850
OpenAlex
W2337672980
Cited by
26
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
health needs assessment, health planning, disease registries, health risk factors, prescribing data
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Data Collection, Family Practice, Female, Health Planning, Health Services Needs and Demand, Humans, London, Male, Medical Audit, Middle Aged, Morbidity, Referral and Consultation, Registries, Urban Health

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review