Computerising the Doctor’s Office

Chapter
Part of the Health Informatics book series (HI)

Abstract

In this chapter, we list the main tasks of doctors working in their offices and the reasons for computerising these offices. We describe the architecture of medical office software and the various types of patient data stored in the electronic medical record. The advantages of using computerised provider order entry are explained. We discuss the various types of decision support available to physicians, including diagnostic tools, alerts and dashboard generation. National and regional initiatives for developing medical office computerisation are described, including the design of open-source software in Canada, the certification of drug prescription software in France and incentives and strategies for generalising the use of electronic medical records in the United States.

Keywords

Medical office Primary care General practitioner Electronic medical record Coding systems ICPC 

References

  1. Abramson EL, Bates DW et al (2012) Ambulatory prescribing errors among community-based providers in two states. J Am Med Inform Assoc 19(4):644–648PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey S (1985) Computerizing the medical office. Can Med Assoc J 133(3):221–224PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Benson T (2011) The history of the Read Codes: the inaugural James Read Memorial Lecture. Inform Prim Care 19(3):173–182PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Botsis T, Bassøe CF, Hartvigsen G (2010) Sixteen years of ICPC use in Norwegian primary care: looking through the facts. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 10:11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Durieux P, Trinquart L et al (2008) Computerized advice on drug dosage to improve prescribing practice. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Jul 16(3):CD002894Google Scholar
  6. Ellis DA, Jenkins R (2012) Weekday affects attendance rate for medical appointments: large-scale data analysis and implications. PLoS One 7(12):e51365PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Holroyd-Leduc JM, Lorenzetti D et al (2011) The impact of the electronic medical record on structure, process, and outcomes within primary care: a systematic review of the evidence. J Am Med Inform Assoc 18(6):732–737PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Khajouei R, Jaspers MW (2010) The impact of CPOE medication systems’ design aspects on usability, workflow and medication orders: a systematic review. Methods Inf Med 49(1):3–19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Khoo EM, Lee WK, Sararaks S et al (2012) Medical errors in primary care clinics – a cross sectional study. BMC Fam Pract 13(1):127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Koopman RJ, Kochendorfer KM et al (2011) A diabetes dashboard and physician efficiency and accuracy in accessing data needed for high-quality diabetes care. Ann Fam Med 9(5):398–405PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McDonald CJ, Schadow G et al (2003) Open Source software in medical informatics–why, how and what. Int J Med Inform 69(2–3):175–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Morgan RA, Morgan DK (1984) Buying and using an office computer. Can Med Assoc J 130(4):469–470, 472–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Singh H, Giardina TD et al (2013) Types and origins of diagnostic errors in primary care settings. JAMA Intern Med 25:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Soler JK, Okkes I et al (2008) The coming of age of ICPC: celebrating the 21st birthday of the International Classification of Primary Care. Fam Pract 25(4):312–317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Steele AW, Eisert S et al (2005) The effect of automated alerts on provider ordering behavior in an outpatient setting. PLoS Med 2(9):e255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tamblyn R, Huang A et al (2008) A randomized trial of the effectiveness of on-demand versus computer-triggered drug decision support in primary care. J Am Med Inform Assoc 15(4):430–438PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Vikström A, Nyström M et al (2010) Views of diagnosis distribution in primary care in 2.5 million encounters in Stockholm: a comparison between ICD-10 and SNOMED CT. Inform Prim Care 18(1):17–29PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Wright A, Henkin S et al (2013) Early results of the meaningful use program for electronic health records. N Engl J Med 368(8):779–780PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LIM&BIO EA 3969UFR SMBH Université Paris 13Bobigny CedexFrance
  2. 2.Faculté de MédecineLaboratoire d’Informatique Médicale, INSERM U936RennesFrance

Personalised recommendations