Managers See the Problems Associated with Coding Clinical Data as a Technical Issue whilst Clinicians also See Cultural Barriers

Summary

Objective: In UK general practice, the coding of clinical data (Read Coding) is far from universal. This study set out to examine the barriers to recording structured information in computerised medical records; and to explore whether managers and clinicians had different perspectives in how these barriers should be overcome.

Method: A qualitative study, using semi-structured interviews of general practitioners, primary care nurses and practice managers. The interviews were recorded verbatim, and then underwent thematic analysis; additional interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was achieved.

Results: For clinicians the recording of structured data within a consultation is not a neutral activity, they are highly aware of diagnostic uncertainty and sensitive to the potential impact of both a correct and incorrect diagnostic label on their relationship with their patient. Clinicians accept that data has to be coded if they are to demonstrate that appropriate evidence based care has been provided to populations; but alongside this they require free-text as a more powerful reminder of the individual human encounter. Managers felt that they could encourage clinicians to code data for re-use as part of population data or as quality target indicators rather than as an enabler of the next consultation. Conclusions: The primary care consultation is a complex social interaction, and coding of the medical diagnosis in itself imposes the bio-medical model, carries assumptions about certainty, and is perceived by clinicians to potentially jeopardise their relationships with their patient. Further research to elicit patients’ views may help clarify the magnitude of this barrier.

Keywords

Structured data - classification systems - computerised medical record - primary care - general practice - medical informatics

• References

• 1 PRODIGY Project. Computerisation in GP practices. Leeds: NHS Executive; 1996
• 2 Department of Health. National Service Frameworks. London: Department of Health; 2000. Available from URL: www.doh.gov.uk/nsf/nsfhome.htm
• 3 NHS Information Authority. Primary Care computer systems. Requirements for accreditation. Birmingham: NHS Information Authority; 2001. Available from URL: www.standards.nhsia.nhs.uk/spg/rfa.htm
• 4 NHS Information Authority. Information for personal health – clinical terminology service. Read Codes. Birmingham: NHS Information Authority; 2001. Available from URL: www.coding.nhsia.nhs.uk/clin_term/read_codes.asp
• 5 Medical Informatics Group. Clinical Terms (Version 3) a position paper. London: MIG; 1988. Available from URL: www.schin. ncl.ac.uk/mig/terms.pdf
• 6 Hobbs FDR, Hawker A. Computerised data collection: practicability and quality in selected general practices. Fam Pract 1995; 12: 221-6.
• 7 Pringle M, Ward P, Chivers C. Assessment of the completeness and accuracy of computer medical records in four practices committed to recording data on computer. Br J Gen Pract 1995; 45: 537-41.
• 8 Thiru K, de Lusignan S, Hague N. Have the completeness and accuracy of computer medical records in general practice improved in the last five years? The report of a two-practice pilot study. Health Informatics Journal 1999; 5 (Suppl. 04) 233-9.
• 9 Hassey A, Gerrett D, Wilson A. A survey of validity and utility of electronic patient records in a general practice. BMJ 2001; 322: 1401-5.
• 10 de Lusignan S, Thiru K, Majeed A. Use of Computer systems in a Primary Care Research Network: Implications for the NHS Information Strategy. Clinician in Management 2001; 10: 32-7.
• 11 Teasdale S. Training, training, training… Lessons from the pilot project for the collection of health data from general practice. Br J Health-care Comput Info Manage 1999; 16 (Suppl. 09) 21-3.
• 12 Rector A. Terminology, codes, classifications in perspective: the challenge of re-use. Br J Healthcare Comput Info Manage 2000; 17 (Suppl. 03) 20-3.
• 13 Scolari, QSR N5. The new release of the bestselling package for qualitative data-analysis from QSR. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 2000
• 14 Silverman D. Doing Qualitative Research. A Practical Handbook. London: Sage; 2000
• 15 de Lusignan S, Hague NJ. The PCDQ, (Primary Care Data Quality) Programme. Bandolier/Impact. January 2001. Available from URL: www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/Bandolier/booth/mgmtPCDQ.html
• 16 Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Millbank Mem Q 1996; 44: 166-206.
• 17 Summerton N. Diagnosis and general practice. Br J Gen Pract 2000; 50: 995-1000.
• 18 Rector AL. Clinical Terminology: Why is it so hard?. Meth Inf Med 1999; 38: 239-52.
• 19 de Lusignan S, Minmagh C, Kennedy C, Zeimet M, Bommezijn H, Bryant J. A survey to identify the clinical coding and classification systems currently in use across the European Community. Medinfo 2001; 10: 86-9.