Family Medicine pp 1131-1138 | Cite as

Information Management

  • Paul Kleeberg

Abstract

The specialty of family medicine has demanding information acquisition and management needs. As a discipline that deals with all aspects of our patients’ health, our needs are arguably the broadest of all medical specialties. These needs also vary according to our own personal practice sites. Family physicians who practice in a metropolitan area may have more convenient access to subspecialty consultation, but they have greater need to merge patient information from various sources into one unified patient record. They are also likely to function as patient care coordinators and therefore must ensure that the subspecialists have the information they need when their patient arrives for consultation. In contrast, rural family physicians, practicing in a more isolated environment, are not likely to have ready access to subspecialists. They may have less of a need to merge records from a variety of sources but a greater need for access to current information to ensure they are providing patients with the best treatment options available.

Keywords

Decision Support System Family Physician Mailing List Natural Language Processor Patient Care Coordinator 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Osheroff JA, editor. Computers and clinical practice: managing patients, information, and communication. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dick RS, Steen EB, editors. The computer-based patient record: an essential technology for health care. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vincent EC, Hardin PA, Norman LA, Lester EA, Stinton SH. The effects of a computer-assisted reminder system on patient compliance with recommended health maintenance procedures. In: Proceedings—the annual symposium on computer applications in medical care. 1995:656–60.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ornstein SM, Garr DR, Jenkins RG, Musham C, Hamadeh G, Lancaster C. Implementation and evaluation of a computer-based preventive services system. Fam Med 1995;27:260–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Litzelman DK, Dittus RS, Miller ME, Tierney WM. Requiring physicians to respond to computerized reminders improves their compliance with preventive care protocols. J Gen Intern Med 1993;8:311–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sullivan F, Mitchell E. Has general practitioner computing made a difference to patient care? A systematic review of published reports. BMJ 1995;311:848–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Safran C, Rind DM, Davis RB, et al. Effects of a knowledge-based electronic patient record on adherence to practice guidelines. MD Comput 1996;13(l):55–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Woodward B. The computer-based patient record and confidentiality. N Engl J Med 1995;333:1419–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barrows RC, Clayton PD. Privacy, confidentiality and electronic medical records. J Am Med Informatics Assoc 1996; 3:139–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Michel PA, Lovis C, Baud R. LUCID: a semi-automated ICD-9 encoding system. Medinformation 1995;8:1656.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Friedman C, Johnson SB, Forman B, Starren J. Architectural requirements for a multipurpose natural language processor in the clinical environment. In: Proceedings—the annual symposium on computer applications in medical care. 1995:347–51.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barrows RC, Clayton PD. Privacy, confidentiality and electronic medical records. J Am Med Informatics Assoc 1996; 3:139–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Legier JD, Oates R. Patients’ reactions to physician use of a computerized medical record system during clinical encounters. J Fam Pract 1993;37:241–4.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Solomon GL, Dechter M. Are patients pleased with computer use in the examination room? J Fam Pract 1995;41:241–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aydin CE, Rosen PN, Jewell SM, Felitti VJ. Computers in the examining room: the patient’s perspective. In: Proceedings— the annual symposium on computer applications in medical care. 1995;824–8.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ridsdale L, Hudd S. Computers in the consultation: the patient’s view. Br J Gen Pract 1994;44:367–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sullivan F, Mitchell E. Has general practitioner computing made a difference to patient care? A systematic review of published reports. BMJ 1995;311:848–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krall MA. Acceptance and performance by clinicians using an ambulatory electronic medical record in an HMO. In: Proceedings—the annual symposium on computer applications in medical care. 1995;708–11.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    American Academy of Family Physicians. Guidelines for the selection of office computer systems for family physicians. Kansas City, MO: AAFP, 1992.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Anonymous. The ninth annual medical hardware and software buyers’ guide. MD Comput 1995;12:441–556.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Churgin PG. Introduction of an automated medical record at an HMO clinic. MD Comput 1994;11:293–300.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lawler FH. Clinical use of decision analysis. Prim Care 1995; 22:281–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wyatt J, Spiegelhalter D. Field trials of medical decision-aids: potential problems and solutions. In: Proceedings of the 15th annual symposium on computer applications in medical care (SCAMC), Washington, DC. 1991:3–7.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Elson RB, Connelly DP. Computerized decision support systems in primary care. Prim Care 1995;22:365–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Faughnan J. Iliad. J Fam Pract 1992;34:642–5.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Miller RA. Medical diagnostic decision support systems— past, present, and future: a threaded bibliography and brief commentary. J Am Med Informatics Assoc 1994;1:8–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hollingsworth GR, Bernstein RM, Viner GS, Remington JS, Wood WE. Prompting for cost-effective cost ordering: a randomized controlled trial. In: Proceedings—the annual symposium on computer applications in medical care. 1995: 635–9.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Evans SR, Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Clemmer TP, Weaver LK, Burke JP. A decision support tool for antibiotic therapy. In: Proceedings—the annual symposium on computer applications in medical care. 1995:651–5.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Crump WJ, Pfeil T. A telemedicine primer: an introduction to the technology and an overview of the literature. Arch Fam Med 1995;4:796–804.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Appleby C. Telemedicine: a prison plugs in. Hosp Health Netw 1995;69(21):56, 58.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zelingher J. Patient handouts from the Internet. MD Comput 1995;12:338–44, 347, 349–50 passim.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fridsma DB, Ford P, Altman R. A survey of patient access to electronic mail: attitudes, barriers, and opportunities. In: Proceedings—the annual symposium on computer applications in medical care. 1994:15–19.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Coiera E. The Internet’s challenge to health care provision. BMJ 1996;312:3–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kohane IS. Exploring the functions of World Wide Web-based electronic medical record systems. MD Comput 1996; 13:339–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ringel M. Accessing medical information from a desert island with telephone service. Greeley, CO: Desert Island Press, 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Kleeberg

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations