Controlled Representation in Patient Records and Healthcare Delivery Systems

  • Kenric W. Hammond
Part of the Computers in Health Care book series (HI)


The vitality of health care drives demand for capable information systems and encourages experimentation in the field, but its highly individualized nature requires complex systems that increase the risk of innovation. For 20 years, one or another of the best minds in healthcare informatics has predicted that either a “complete” or “paperless” electronic patient record was only about 5 years off. Presently, the year 2000 is the target of choice. Healthcare informaticians, like astronomers who build stronger telescopes to see more stars, know that the price of progress is repeated realization that completing one task merely reveals the next.


Business Process Knowledge Source Unify Medical Language System Problem List Business Rule 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American Medical Association. 1989.Physicians current procedural terminology: CPT. 4th edn. Chicago, IL: Author.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association. 1994.Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  3. Barnett GO, Justice NS, & Somand ME. 1979. COSTAR-a computer-stored medical information system for ambulatory care. IEEE Proceedings, 67, 1226–1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berwick DM, Godfrey A, Blanton A, & Roessner J. 1990.Curing health care: New strategies for quality improvement. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  5. Carroll-Johnson RM. 1994. Classification of nursing diagnoses: Proceedings of the 10th conference. North American Nursing Diagnosis Association.Google Scholar
  6. Cimino JJ, Johnson SB, Aguirre A, Roderer N, & Clayton P. 1992. The MEDLINE button. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care, pp. 81–85.Google Scholar
  7. Clancey WJ. 1995. The learning process in the epistemology of medical information. Methods of Information in Medicine, 34(1–2), 122–130.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cote RA, ed. 1995.Systematized nomenclature of medicine.2nd edn. Skokie, IL: American College of Pathologists.Google Scholar
  9. Hammond KW. 1995. Treatment planning: Implications for structure of the CPR. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (Symposium Supplement), 362–366.Google Scholar
  10. Hammond KW. 1996. Systems for accessing knowledge at the point of care. In MJ Miller, KW Hammond, & MG Hile (eds):Mental Health Computing. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 304–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hammond KW, Iverson SC, Nichol WP, Gabre-Kidan T, Solveson KD, Schreuder AB, O’Brien JJ, & Jeffers DC. 1996. The challenge of simulating a complex ambulatory care system. In JE Anderson & M Katzper (eds):Simulation in the Medical Sciences. San Diego: Society for Computer Simulation, pp. 38–44.Google Scholar
  12. Health Care Financing Administration. 1991. The International Classification of Diseases; 9th rev. Clinical Modification. 4th edn. Washington DC: Author.Google Scholar
  13. Humphreys BL, & Lindberg DAB. 1989. Building the Unified Medical Language System. Proceedings of the 13th Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care, pp. 475–480.Google Scholar
  14. Lincoln MJ, Weir C, Moreshead G, Kolodner R, & Williamson J. 1994. Creating and evaluating the Department of Veterans Affairs electronic medical record and national clinical lexicon. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care, p. 1047.Google Scholar
  15. Martin K, & Scheet N. 1992. The Omaha System. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.Google Scholar
  16. McCloskey JC, & Bulechek GM. 1994. Nursing Interventions Classification (NIC): Iowa Intervention Project. St. Louis, MO: Mosby-Year Book.Google Scholar
  17. McDonald CJ. 1976. Protocol-based computer reminders, the quality of care and the non-perfectability of man. New England Journal of Medicine, 295(24), 1351–1355.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McKibbon KA, Haynes RB, Johnston ME, & Walker CJ. 1991. A study to enhance clinical end-user Medline search skills: Design and baseline findings. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care, pp. 73–77.Google Scholar
  19. Nielson C, Smith CS, Lee D, & Wang M. 1994. Implementation of a relational patient record with integration of educational and reference information. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association Symposium Supplement: Proceedings, Eighteenth Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care, 125–129.Google Scholar
  20. Payne TH, & Martin DR. 1993. How useful is the UMLS metathesaurus in developing a controlled vocabulary for an automated problem list? Proceedings of the 17th Annual Symposium on Computers in Medical Care, pp. 705–709.Google Scholar
  21. Read J. 1990. Read clinical classification. British Medical Journal, 301(6742), 45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Safran C, Rind DM, Davis RB, Ives D, Sands DZ, Currier J, Slack WV, Cotton DJ, & Makadon HJ. 1996. Effects of a knowledge-based electronic patient record on adherence to practice guidelines. MD Computing, 13(1), 55–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Shortliffe EH. 1976. Computer-based medical consultations: MYCIN. New York: American Elsevier.Google Scholar
  24. Tomer C. 1992. Information technology standards for libraries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43, 566–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenric W. Hammond

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations