| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Ljungberg, Christina, 1978-, et al.
(författare)
-
Primary care and hospital doctors’ experiences of prescribing information transfer using a shared electronic patient medical record system
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Rationale, aim and objective Uppsala county council has implemented a shared electronic patient medical record (e-PMR) system between primary and secondary care. Uppsala is one of the first counties in Sweden to implement such a system, and has the largest number of affiliated health care users with a shared e-PMR. The aim of this study was to investigate primary care and hospital doctors’ experiences of using the shared e-PMR, regarding information about individual patients’ drug therapies between the health care levels.Method Semi-structured focus groups were conducted. Four groups were held with hospital and four with primary care doctors. Data were analysed from an interpretivist perspective, aiming at capturing the physicians’ perspective. They were coded, categorised and similar categories grouped into themes. The constant comparative method was used; all new data were compared to earlier data and earlier analyses, and categories were formed and reformed throughout the analysis. After analysis of the data from the separate groups, a mixed focus group was held with doctors from both primary care and hospital, in which the earlier findings were discussed, to explore variations in the data. The analysis was informed by the Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom hierarchy, where a differentiation is made between raw facts (data) and their conversion into, for example, a useful form for a particular context (knowledge).Results The shared e-PMR was perceived as having many advantages, especially as all information was available electronically, which was convenient and time saving. The large amount of information, however, made it difficult to handle. The sought-after knowledge could be hard to retrieve in an information overload. Information about a patient’s drug therapy was not always collected in the medication list; additional information could be found in the e-PMR-notes, given by the patient or in the list of the patient’s automated medication dispensing service. Doctors did not summarize information as often, instead cross-referencing information that could be found elsewhere in the e-PMR.Conclusions The information in the e-PMR needs to be structured in a comprehensible way to facilitate reading and knowledge production. It is not just about providing information, the knowledge needs to be communicated in a good way to the next care-giver.
|
|
| 4. |
- Ljungberg, Christina, 1978-, et al.
(författare)
-
Responsibility for a patient’s drug therapy : perspectives of primary care and hospital doctors
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Background: Health care provision is complex, with many actors, bringing difficulties in ensuring the responsibility for different health care providers is clear. Perceived lack of responsibility for a patient between primary and hospital care can lead to non-compliance with drug guidelines. The aim of this study was to investigate hospital and primary care doctors’ views of responsibility for patients’ drug therapy.Methods: Four audio-recorded focus groups were held with hospital doctors and four with primary care doctors. Fourteen hospital and 27 primary care doctors participated. The data were transcribed and analysed from an interpretivist perspective, to capture the physicians’ perspectives. Data were coded and categorised and similar categories grouped into themes. A mixed focus group was then held with 14 doctors from both primary care and hospital, who had participated in earlier focus groups. This allowed doctors from both settings to discuss the findings from the separate groups and to explore variations in the data.Results: Taking responsibility for the patient’s drug therapy was seen as being discharged when the doctors reviewed the patient’s drugs and updated the list of medications in the medical record. Nobody said they had the overall responsibility for the individual patient’s drug therapy. Secondary care doctors often only took responsibility for drugs within their own clinical area. Primary care doctors found it difficult to take overall responsibility, especially for highly specialized treatments, even though they described themselves as having a more comprehensive perspective of the patient’s drugs than the hospital doctors. Barriers to taking responsibility for both sectors included time constrains, lack of information regarding prescribing decisions by other doctors, highly specialized or expensive drugs and lack of economic incentives. Doctors from different health care levels did not routinely meet, informally or formally, and, at the time of the study, had no clear channels for communication between them. Conclusions: Taking responsibility to review the patient’s list of medications was perceived as important, but was described as difficult in daily practice.
|
|
| 5. |
- Schwan, Anna, et al.
(författare)
-
Colonization with potentially pathogenic respiratory tract bacteria : a household study
- 1989
-
Ingår i: Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care. - 0281-3432 .- 1502-7724. ; 7:4, s. 203-209
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- A group of 235 persons (180 adults and 55 children 0-15 years old) recorded symptoms of upper respiratory tract infection daily during two three-month periods (autumn 1986 and spring 1987). Samples for culture were taken from the nasopharynx and throat once during each period. Fifteen per cent of asymptomatic subjects harboured respiratory pathogens in the nasopharynx, as did 28% of those subjects with minor respiratory tract infections and 46% of those with more severe respiratory tract infections. Of children up to seven years of age, 58% were colonized with potential respiratory pathogens, which is important to keep in mind when evaluating culture reports from young children. Adults living with young children were colonized significantly more often than other adults. Branhamella catarrhalis was the most common pathogen.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Tully, Mary P., et al.
(författare)
-
Transfer of data or re-creation of knowledge - Experiences of a shared electronic patient medical records system
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy. - : Elsevier BV. - 1551-7411 .- 1934-8150. ; 9:6, s. 965-974
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: A shared electronic medical record (EMR) can improve communication between primary and secondary care. A consideration of the contents using Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy could help inform further development of such systems regarding communication about prescribed medication. Objectives: To investigate primary and secondary care doctors' experiences of the shared EMR in Uppsala, Sweden, focusing on the creation, use and cross-sector transfer of data, information, knowledge and wisdom about individual patients' prescribed medication. Method: Nine focus groups were held with hospital doctors, of different grades and medical specialties, working at a single large teaching hospital in Uppsala, Sweden and primary care doctors worked in the same geographical area, in urban and rural primary care centers. The transcribed data were analyzed used the constant comparative method, based on data from the participants and application of the DIKW hierarchy. Results: The doctors were very positive about accessing and using the shared EMR. Data and information in the system were efficiently retrieved and combined with newly collected data and information to create further knowledge. However, they also described a data and information overload, where it was difficult to get a general overview of what had happened over time, coupled with the frequent lack of knowledge being created and shared by other healthcare providers. Doctors were, instead, either explicitly asked or implicitly expected to read and interpret all available data and information and recreate knowledge themselves. Conclusions: This study highlighted the differences between access to data and information and access to knowledge in a shared EMR. In rolling out such a system, an increased availability of data and information should not be at the expense of a reduced availability of knowledge.
|
|
