Cited by 136Electronic Health Records SystemsMedical Coding and Health InformationPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Spatial distribution of clinical computer systems in primary care in England in 2016 and implications for primary care electronic medical record databases: a cross-sectional population study

Open access

Abstract

Objectives: UK primary care databases (PCDs) are used by researchers worldwide to inform clinical practice. These databases have been primarily tied to single clinical computer systems, but little is known about the adoption of these systems by primary care practices or their geographical representativeness. We explore the spatial distribution of clinical computing systems and discuss the implications for the longevity and regional representativeness of these resources. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: English primary care clinical computer systems. Participants: 7526 general practices in August 2016. Methods: Spatial mapping of family practices in England in 2016 by clinical computer system at two geographical levels, the lower Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG, 209 units) and the higher National Health Service regions (14 units). Data for practices included numbers of doctors, nurses and patients, and area deprivation. Results: Of 7526 practices, Egton Medical Information Systems (EMIS) was used in 4199 (56%), SystmOne in 2552 (34%) and Vision in 636 (9%). Great regional variability was observed for all systems, with EMIS having a stronger presence in the West of England, London and the South; SystmOne in the East and some regions in the South; and Vision in London, the South, Greater Manchester and Birmingham. Conclusions: PCDs based on single clinical computer systems are geographically clustered in England. For example, Clinical Practice Research Datalink and The Health Improvement Network, the most popular primary care databases in terms of research outputs, are based on the Vision clinical computer system, used by <10% of practices and heavily concentrated in three major conurbations and the South. Researchers need to be aware of the analytical challenges posed by clustering, and barriers to accessing alternative PCDs need to be removed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020738

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • QResearch is the most nationally representative United Kingdom database, while CPRD is more geographically restricted.

    “While both CPRD and QResearch are large United Kingdom databases, QResearch is the most nationally representative, while CPRD is more geographically restricted.36”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. Millman, 1995, ABC of medical computing. computers in general practice--I, BMJ, 311, 800, 10.1136/bmj.311.7008.800 · DOI
  2. 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003190 · DOI
  3. 10.1056/NEJMhpr041294 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1097/01.JAC.0000324664.88131.d2 · DOI
  5. Tai, 2007, Variation in clinical coding lists in UK general practice: a barrier to consistent data entry?, Inform Prim Care, 15, 143
  6. Springate, 2014, ClinicalCodes: an online clinical codes repository to improve the validity and reproducibility of research using electronic medical records, PLoS One, 9, 10.1371/journal.pone.0099825 · DOI
  7. 10.1136/bmj.326.7398.1070 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012785 · DOI
  9. Carbonari, 2015, Use of demographic and pharmacy data to identify patients included within both the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and The Health Improvement Network (THIN), Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf, 24, 999, 10.1002/pds.3844 · DOI
  10. 10.1136/bmj.j2497 · DOI
  11. 10.1136/bmj.328.7447.1043 · DOI
  12. 10.1136/bmj.d508 · DOI
  13. 10.1136/jech-2017-209195 · DOI
  14. Bojke, 2013, Regional variation in the productivity of the English national health service, Health Econ, 22, 194, 10.1002/hec.2794 · DOI
  15. 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.02.002 · DOI
  16. 10.1136/bmj.39335.541782.AD · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.18637/jss.v055.i02 · DOI
  18. 10.1136/bmj.g330 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kontopantelis, E., Stevens, R. J., Helms, P. J., Edwards, D., Doran, T., & Ashcroft, D. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • University of York (GB)
Corresponding author
Kontopantelis, Evangelos
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2018-02
Volume
8
Issue
2
Pages
e020738
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2772187823
Cited by
136
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 4
FWCI
16.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Oxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford) (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (cc-by)
Funders
Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
primary care, electronic health records, spatial distribution, regional representativeness, general practice, EMIS, SystmOne, vision, primary care databases, Clinical Practice Research Datalink, Health Improvement Network, geographical clustering, area deprivation, England
MeSH terms
Adult, Computer Systems, Cross-Sectional Studies, England, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Primary Health Care, Electronic Health Records, General Practice, Spatial Analysis

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