Identification of high-quality consultation practice in primary care: the effects of computer use on doctor-patient rapport
Open accessAbstract
If the practitioner uses a clinical computer during consultation with the patient there may be adverse effects on the quality of interpersonal communication in the consultation. Greatbach et al showed in 1995 that these adverse effects might be minimised when the practitioner is well-practised and able to put in the background the tasks involving the computer. In the subsequent seven years, as clinical computer systems have become more sophisticated, the clinician may be called on to pay more attention to the content displayed on the computer screen. This study shows that this required level of attention cannot be put in the background, and that general practitioners (GPs) are not able to multitask at this level. Clinicians can use specific communication skills to manage the consultation, so that they are not called on to concentrate on the computer screen and the patient at the same time. The two tasks can be accomplished in the same consultation, but not simultaneously.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
This study has also added to an emerging but limited UK evidence base that has reported potential negative impacts of electronic records on the doctor-patient relationship and patient safety in secondary care.
“This study has also added to an emerging but limited UK evidence base that has reported potential negative impacts of electronic records on the doctor-patient relationship [35] and patient safety in secondary care [36–38].”
From Exploring the implementation of an electronic record into a maternity unit: a qualitative study using Normalisation Process Theory (2017) · cites this paper as [35]
Cites
(1985) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511665868 · Cited by 4,187 · see citing works
The Doctor, His Patient, and the Illness
BALINT, M. (1957) · Postgraduate Medical Journal · doi:10.1136/pgmj.33.382.417-a · Cited by 1,270 · see citing works
Evaluation of computer support for prescribing (CAPSULE) using simulated cases
Walton, R. T., Gierl, C., Yudkin, P. L., Mistry, H., Vessey, M. P., & Fox, J. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7111.791 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Impact of electronic medical record on physician practice in office settings: a systematic review
Lau, F., Price, M., Boyd, J., Partridge, C., Bell, H., & Raworth, R. (2012) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/1472-6947-12-10 · Cited by 199 · see citing works
“psychological) [12,26,42,43], consult room layout [42] and patients’ ability to schedule appointments [27,33].”
BackgroundPrimary Care Physicians’ Use of an Electronic Medical Record System: A Cognitive Task Analysis
Shachak, A., Hadas-Dayagi, M., Ziv, A., & Reis, S. (2009) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-008-0892-6 · Cited by 188 · see citing works
Scantlebury, A., Sheard, L., Watt, I., Cairns, P., Wright, J., & Adamson, J. (2017) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-016-0406-0 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
“This study has also added to an emerging but limited UK evidence base that has reported potential negative impacts of electronic records on the doctor-patient relationship [35] and patient safety in secondary care [36–38].”
ResultMuralidharan, A., Schaffner, R. M., Hack, S., Jahn, D. R., Peeples, A. D., & Lucksted, A. (2017) · Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation and Mental Health · doi:10.1007/s40737-017-0076-y · Cited by 21 · see citing works
- Authors
- Booth, N., Robinson, P., & Kohannejad, J.
- Affiliations
- Newcastle University (GB)
- Venue
- Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics
- Publisher
- Portico
- Published
- 2004
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 75-83
- ISSN
- 1475-9985 (ISSN-L)
- 2058-4555
- OpenAlex
- W2024917189
- Cited by
- 133
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 3.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doaj.org
- Licence
- cc-by-sa
- Locations
- Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics (BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT) (submittedVersion)
- Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
- Keywords
- physician-patient rapport, consultation quality, multitasking, general practitioners, interpersonal communication, communication skills, primary care
- MeSH terms
- Attitude of Health Personnel, Attitude to Computers, Communication, Computers, Humans, Office Visits, Physician-Patient Relations, Physicians, Family, Primary Health Care, Video Recording
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
