Section 2: Patient Records: Electronic Patient Records and their Benefit for Patient Care

P. Knaup; Managing Editor for the IMIA-Yearbook Section on Patient Records

doi:10.1055/s-0038-1638475

Yearbook of Medical Informatics, Table of Contents

Yearb Med Inform 2006; 15(01): 40-42
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1638475

Synopsis

Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart

Section 2: Patient Records: Electronic Patient Records and their Benefit for Patient Care

Findings from the Section on Patient Records

Authors

P. Knaup

¹University of Heidelberg, Department of Medical Informatics, Heidelberg, Germany

Managing Editor for the IMIA-Yearbook Section on Patient Records

Abstract

Summary

Objectives

To summarize current excellent research in the field of patient records.

Method

Synopsis of the articles selected for the IMIA Yearbook 2006.

Results

Current research in the field of patient records analyses users’ needs and attitudes as well as the potential and limitations of electronic patient record systems. Particular topics are the questions physicians have when assessing patients during ward rounds, the timeliness of results when ordered electronically, the quality of documenting haemophilia home therapy, attitudes towards patient access to health records and adequate strategies for record linkage in dependence on the intended purpose.

Conclusions

The best paper selection of articles on patient records shows examples of excellent research on methods used for the management of patient records and for processing their content as well as assessing the potential, limitations of and user attitudes towards electronic patient record systems. Computerized patient records are mature, so that they can contribute to high quality patient care and efficient patient management.

Keywords

Medical Informatics - International Medical Informatics Association - Yearbook - medical records - computerized medical records systems

Full Text

References

References
1 Klar R. Selected impressions on the beginning of the electronic medical record and patient information. Methods Inf Med 2004; 43: 537-42.
2 Bates DW, Gawande AA. Improving safety with information technology. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 2526-34.
3 Carroll AE, Christakis DA. Pediatricians’ use of and attitudes about personal digital assistants. Pediatrics 2004; 113: 238-42.
4 Lukowicz P, Kirstein T, Troster G. Wearable systems for health care applications. Methods Inf Med 2004; 43: 232-8.
5 Maojo V, Martin-Sanchez F. Bioinformatics: towards new directions for public health. Methods Inf Med 2004; 43: 208-14.
6 Delpierre C, Cuzin L, Fillaux J, Alvarez M, Massip P, Lang T. A systematic review of computer-based patient record systems and quality of care: more randomized clinical trials or a broader approach?. Int J Qual Health Care 2004; 16: 407-16.
7 Knaup P, Ammenwerth E, Brandner R, Brigl B, Fischer G, Garde S, Lang E, Pilgram R, Ruderich F, Singer R, Wolff AC, Haux R, Kulikowski C. Towards clinical bioinformatics: advancing genomic medicine with informatics methods and tools. Methods Inf Med 2004; 43: 302-7.
8 Bott OJ, Ammenwerth E, Brigl B, Knaup P, Lang E, Pilgram R, Pfeifer B, Ruderich F, Wolff AC, Haux R, Kulikowski C. The challenge of ubiquitous computing in health care: technology, concepts and solutions. Findings from the IMIA Yearbook of Medical Informatics 2005. Methods Inf Med 2005; 44: 473-9.
9 Reuss E, Menozzi M, Buchi M, Koller J, Krueger H. Information access at the point of care: what can we learn for designing a mobile CPR system?. Int J Med Inform 2004; 73: 363-9.
10 Kaushal R, Shojania KG, Bates DW. Effects of computerized physician order entry and clinical decision support systems on medication safety: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med 2003; 163: 1409-16.
11 Koppel R, Metlay JP, Cohen A, Abaluck B, Localio AR, Kimmel SE, Strom BL. Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. JAMA 2005; 293: 1197-203.
12 Thompson W, Dodek PM, Norena M, Dodek J. Computerized physician order entry of diagnostic tests in an intensive care unit is associated with improved timeliness of service. Crit Care Med 2004; 32: 1306-9.
13 Brandner R, van der Haak M, Hartmann M, Haux R, Schmücker P. Electronic Signature for Medical Documents – Integration and Evaluation of a Public Key Infrastructure in Hospitals. Methods Inf Med 2002; 41: 321-30.
14 Blobel B. Authorisation and access control for electronic health record systems. Int J Med Inf 2004; 73: 251-7.
15 Pyper C, Amery J, Watson M, Crook C. Access to electronic health records in primary care-a survey of patients’ views. Med Sci Monit 2004; 10: SR17-22.
16 Walker I, Sigouin C, Sek J, Almonte T, Carruthers J, Chan A, Pai M, Heddle N. Comparing hand-held computers and paper diaries for haemophilia home therapy: a randomized trial. Haemophilia 2004; 10: 698-704.
17 Contiero P, Tittarelli A, Tagliabue G, Maghini A, Fabiano S, Crosignani P, Tessandori R. The EpiLink record linkage software: presentation and results of linkage test on cancer registry files. Methods Inf Med 2005; 44: 66-71.
18 Quantin C, Binquet C, Allaert FA, Cornet B, Pattisina R, Leteuff G, Ferdynus C, Gouyon JB. Decision analysis for the assessment of a record linkage procedure: application to a perinatal network. Methods Inf Med 2005; 44: 72-9.
19 Dansky KH, Gamm LD, Vasey JJ, Barsukiewicz CK. Electronic medical records: are physicians ready?. J Healthc Manag 1999; 44: 440-54.
20 Ross ES, Lin C-T. The Effects of Promoting Patient Access to Medical Records: A Review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2003; 10: 129-138.