Document Detail


Randomised crossover trial comparing the performance of Clinical Terms Version 3 and Read Codes 5 byte set coding schemes in general practice.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  12763986     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether Clinical Terms Version 3 provides greater accuracy and consistency in coding electronic patient records than the Read Codes 5 byte set.
DESIGN: Randomised crossover trial. Clinicians coded patient records using both schemes after being randomised in pairs to use one scheme before the other.
SETTING: 10 general practices in urban, suburban, and rural environments in Norfolk.
PARTICIPANTS: 10 general practitioners.
SOURCE OF DATA: Concepts were collected from records of 100 patient encounters.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage of coded choices ranked as being exact representations of the original terms; percentage of cases where coding choice of paired general practitioners was identical; length of time taken to find a code.
RESULTS: A total of 995 unique concepts were collected. Exact matches were more common with Clinical Terms (70% (95% confidence interval 67% to 73%)) than with Read Codes (50% (47% to 53%)) (P < 0.001), and this difference was significant for each of the 10 participants individually. The pooled proportion with exact and identical matches by paired participants was greater for Clinical Terms (0.58 (0.55 to 0.61)) than Read Codes (0.36 (0.33 to 0.39)) (P < 0.001). The time taken to code with Clinical Terms (30 seconds per term) was not significantly longer than that for Read Codes.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinical Terms Version 3 performed significantly better than Read Codes 5 byte set in capturing the meaning of concepts. These findings suggest that improved coding accuracy in primary care electronic patient records can be achieved with the use of such a clinical terminology.
Authors:
Philip J B Brown; Victoria Warmington; Michael Laurence; A Toby Prevost
Related Documents :
14733446 - Licensing and training requirements for direct care workers in japan: what can the unit...
24800326 - Vulnerable adults and the abolition of powers to remove a person in need of care.
17097546 - Surgical management of cervical myelopathy dealing with the cervical-thoracic junction.
18454576 - Putting it into practice: strategizing a successful anemia management protocol in the l...
12099156 - Pct prescribing. equitable life.
10170286 - What's next for managed care? panel discussion.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Clinical Trial; Journal Article; Multicenter Study; Randomized Controlled Trial; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't    
Journal Detail:
Title:  BMJ (Clinical research ed.)     Volume:  326     ISSN:  1756-1833     ISO Abbreviation:  BMJ     Publication Date:  2003 May 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2003-05-23     Completed Date:  2003-06-16     Revised Date:  2013-04-18    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  8900488     Medline TA:  BMJ     Country:  England    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  1127     Citation Subset:  AIM; IM    
Affiliation:
School of Information Systems, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ. Pjbb@hicomm.demon.co.uk
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Adult
Classification*
Cross-Over Studies
Family Practice*
Female
Humans
Male
Medical Records Systems, Computerized
Middle Aged
Rural Health
Sensitivity and Specificity
Suburban Health
Comments/Corrections
Comment In:
BMJ. 2003 May 24;326(7399):1101-2   [PMID:  12763958 ]

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine


Previous Document:  Iron supplementation for unexplained fatigue in non-anaemic women: double blind randomised placebo c...
Next Document:  Use of Read codes in diabetes management in a south London primary care group: implications for esta...