Family Medicine pp 1028-1035 | Cite as

Information Management

  • Donald C. Spencer
  • E. Andrew Balas
  • Joan E. Nashelsky

Abstract

Family practice requires efficient management of information. Patient data are collected and interpreted for diagnosis establishment and treatment selection. Medical records contain information from a variety of sources (e.g., physical examination, diagnostic laboratories, specialist consultations). Continuity of care requires transfer of clinical information. Practice guidelines must be disseminated efficiently to improve quality of care.

Keywords

Family Practice Computerize Record Computerize Medical Record General Medicine Clinic Digoxin Intoxication 
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.
    Haynes RB, Walker CJ. Computer-aided quality assurance: a critical appraisal. Arch Intern Med 1987;147:1297–301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Byar DP. Why data bases should not replace randomized clinical trials. Biometrics 1980;36:337–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wechsler H, Levine S, Idelson RK, Rohman M, Taylor JO. The physician’s role in health promotion—a survey of primary-care practitioners. N Engl J Med 1983;302:97–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scaffardi RA. An evaluation of practice records and opportunistic screening. Practitioner 1987;23:988–95.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chambers CV, Balaban DJ, Carlson BL, Grasberger DM. The effect of microcomputer-generated reminders on influenza vaccination rates in a university-based family practice center. J Am Board Fam Pract 1991;4:19–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program Cooperative Group. Blood pressure studies in 14 communities: a two-stage screen for hypertension. JAMA 1977;237:2385–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Finnerty FA, Shaw LW, Himmelsbach CK. Hypertension in the inner city. II. Detection and follow-up. Circulation 1973;47:76–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barnett GO, Winickoff RN, Morgan MM, Zielstorff RD. A computer-based monitoring system for follow-up of elevated blood pressure. Med Care 1983;21:400–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    National Health Interview Survey. Provisional estimates from the National Health Interview Survey Supplement on Cancer Control—United States, January-March, 1987. MMWR 1988;37:417–20.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Public awareness and use of cancer detection tests: 1983 survey. Princeton, NJ: Gallup Organization, 1984.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Recommendation of the Immunization Practices Advisory Committee (ACIP): Prevention and control of influenza. MMWR 1984;34:261–75.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Becker MH, Janz NK. Behavioral science perspectives on hazard/health risk appraisal. Health Serv Res 1987;22:537–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brimberry R. Vaccination of high-risk patients for influenza: a comparison of telephone and mail reminder methods. J Fam Pract 1988;26:397–400.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McDowell I, Newell C, Rosser W. Computerized reminders to encourage cervical screening in family practice. J Fam Pract 1989;28:420–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ornstein SM, Garr DR, Jenkins RG, Rust PF, Arnon A. Computer-generated physician and patient reminders: tools to improve population adherence to selected preventive services. J Fam Pract 1991;32:82–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shortliffe EH, Perreault LE, editors. Medical informatics: computer applications in health care. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1990.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kuperman GJ, Gardner RM, Pryor TA.HELP: a dynamic hospital information system. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    White KS, Lindsay A, Pryor TA, Brown WF, Walsh K. Application of a computerized medical decision-making process to the problem of digoxin intoxication. J Am Coll Cardiol 1984;4:571–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pozen MW, D’Agostino RB, Selker HP, Sytkowski PA, Hood WB. A predictive instrument to improve coronary-care-unit admission practices in acute ischemic heart disease. N Engl J Med 1984;310:1273–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tierney WM, McDonald CJ, Hui SL, Martin DK. Computer predictions of abnormal test results: effects on outpatient testing. JAMA 1988;259:1194–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Peterson CM, Jovanovic L, Chánoch LH. Randomized trial of computer-assisted insulin delivery in patients with type I diabetes beginning pump therapy. Am J Med 1986;81:69–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schrezenmeir J, Achterberg H, Bergereier J, et al. Controlled study on the use of hand-held insulin dosage computers enabling conversion to and optimizing of meal-related insulin therapy regimens. Life Support Syst 1985;3 Suppl:561–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sheiner LB, Halkin H, Peck C, Rosenberg B, Melmon KL. Improved computer-assisted digoxin therapy: a method using feedback of measured serum digoxin concentrations. Ann Intern Med 1975;82:619–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Begg EJ, Atkinson HC, Jeffery GM, Taylor NW. Individualized aminoglycoside dosage based on pharmacokinetic analysis is superior to dosage based on physician intuition at achieving target plasma drug concentrations. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1989;28:137–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Spann S J, Rodnick JE. Should the complete medical record be computerized in family practice? J Fam Pract 1990;30:457–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Darnell JC, Hiner SL, Neill PJ, et al. After-hours access to physicians with access to computerized medical records: experience in an inner-city general medicine clinic. Med Care 1985;23:20–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rogers JL, Haring OM. The impact of a computerized medical record summary system on incidence and length of hospitalization. Med Care 1979;17:618–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rogers JL, Haring OM, Goetz JP. Changes in patient attitudes following the implementation of a medical information system. QRB Qual Rev Bull 1984;10:65–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wilson GA, McDonald CJ, McCabe GP. The effect of immediate access to a computerized medical record on physician test ordering: a controlled clinical trial in the emergency room. Am J Public Health 1982;72:698–702.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Weinberger M, Smith DM, Katz BP, Moore PS. The cost-effectiveness of intensive postdischarge care: a randomized trial. Med Care 1988;26:1092–102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vincent C, Schneeweiss R. How family physicians choose an office computer system. J Am Board Fam Pract 1992;5:275–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Barrett GO. The application of computer-based medical record systems in ambulatory practice. N Engl J Med 1984;310:1643–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lawson GJ, McConnell JW. Starting and managing your practice: a guidebook for physicians. Cambridge: Oelgeschlager Gunn & Hain, 1983.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Davies NE. Reimbursement for computer-assisted literature searches for patient care. N Engl J Med 1988;319:1021.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bernstein JM, Watson BL. Will the use of Grateful Med reduce physician liability? Gratefully Yours 1991;Sept/Oct:3.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hafner AW, Filipowicz AB, Whitely WP. Computers in medicine: liability issues for physicians. Int J Clin Monit Comput 1989;6: 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fox GN. Computer literature searching—will docs byte? Fam Pract Res J 1991;11:11–20.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Feinglos SJ. MEDLINE: a basic guide to searching. Chicago: Medical Library Association, 1985:6, 54.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    McKibbon KA, Haynes RB, Walker CJ, et al. How good are clinical MEDLINE searches? A comparative study of clinical end-user and librarian searches. Comput Biomed Res 1990;23:590–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bernstein F. The retrieval of randomized clinical trials in liver diseases from the medical literature: manual versus MEDLARS searches. Controlled Clin Trials 1988;9:23–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donald C. Spencer
  • E. Andrew Balas
  • Joan E. Nashelsky

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations