Mäkelä K, Virjo I, Aho J, Kalliola P, Koivukoski A-M, Kurunmäki H, Kähärä M, Uusitalo L, Valli M, Vuotari V, Ylinen S
Tampere University of Technology and Seinäjoki Central Hospital, Finland.
J Telemed Telecare. 2005;11 Suppl 2:S66-8. doi: 10.1258/135763305775124641.
We studied how well electronic patient record (EPR) systems meet the needs of general practitioners (GPs) and other health-care professionals for specific information. GPs in eight health centres in the South-Ostrobothnia region of Finland were invited to participate. They used three types of EPR system. They were asked to access EPRs to obtain 20 types of information for patients receiving anticoagulant treatment. In total 2,389 patient cases were studied. All of the information requested was available for 73% of the cases (range 55-93%). There was a significant difference between the type of EPR system and the percentage of patients for whom information was available through the EPR. However, further analysis showed that differences in performance between EPR systems probably reflected differences in the way EPRs were used by different organizations. Great care should be taken in attempts to rank EPR systems based on their performance.
我们研究了电子病历（EPR）系统在多大程度上满足全科医生（GP）和其他医疗保健专业人员对特定信息的需求。芬兰南奥斯特罗波赫蒂亚地区八个健康中心的全科医生受邀参与。他们使用了三种类型的电子病历系统。要求他们访问电子病历，以获取接受抗凝治疗患者的20种类型的信息。总共研究了2389个患者病例。所要求的所有信息在73%的病例中都可获取（范围为55%-93%）。电子病历系统的类型与通过电子病历可获取信息的患者百分比之间存在显著差异。然而，进一步分析表明，电子病历系统之间性能的差异可能反映了不同组织使用电子病历方式的差异。在试图根据电子病历系统的性能进行排名时应格外谨慎。
