Suppr超能文献

计算机化对澳大利亚全科医疗的影响:它是否提高了医疗质量?

Effect of computerisation on Australian general practice: does it improve the quality of care?

作者信息

Henderson Joan, Miller Graeme, Britt Helena, Pan Ying

机构信息

Family Medicine Research Centre, Discipline of General Practice, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Acacia House, Westmead Hospital, PO Box 533, Wentworthville, NSW 2145, Australia.

出版信息

Qual Prim Care. 2010;18(1):33-47.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

There is an assumption expressed in literature that computer use for clinical activity will improve the quality of general practice care, but there is little evidence to support or refute this assumption.

AIM

This study compares general practitioners (GPs) who use a computer to prescribe, order tests or keep patient records, with GPs who do not, using a set of validated quality indicators.

METHODS

BEACH (Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health) is a continuous national crosssectional survey of general practice activity in Australia. A sub-sample of 1257 BEACH participants between November 2003 and March 2005 were grouped according to their computer use for test ordering, prescribing and/or medical records. Linear and logistic regression analysis was used to compare the two groups on a set of 34 quality indicators.

RESULTS

Univariate analyses showed that computerised GPs managed more problems; provided fewer medications; ordered more pathology; performed more Pap smear tests; provided more immunisations; ordered more HbA1c tests and provided more referrals to ophthalmologists and allied health workers for diabetes patients; provided less lifestyle counselling, and had fewer consultations with Health Care Card (HCC) holders. After adjustment, differences attributable solely to computer use were prescribed medication rates, lifestyle counselling, HCC holders and referrals to ophthalmologists. Three other differences emerged - computerised GPs provided fewer referrals to allied health workers and detected fewer new cases of depression, and fewer of them prescribed anti-depressants. Twenty-three measures failed to discriminate before or after adjustment.

CONCLUSION

Deciding on 'best quality' is subjective. While literature and guidelines provide clear parameters for many measures, others are difficult to judge. Overall, there was little difference between these two groups. This study has found little evidence to support the claim that computerisation of general practice in Australia has improved the quality of care provided to patients.

摘要

背景

文献中有一种观点认为,在临床活动中使用计算机将提高全科医疗服务的质量,但几乎没有证据支持或反驳这一观点。

目的

本研究使用一组经过验证的质量指标,比较使用计算机进行处方开具、检查单开具或保存患者记录的全科医生(GP)与不使用计算机的全科医生。

方法

BEACH(改善健康评估与护理)是一项对澳大利亚全科医疗活动进行的全国性连续性横断面调查。2003年11月至2005年3月期间,从1257名BEACH参与者中抽取的一个子样本,根据他们在检查单开具、处方开具和/或病历记录方面对计算机的使用情况进行分组。使用线性和逻辑回归分析,在一组34个质量指标上比较这两组。

结果

单因素分析表明,使用计算机的全科医生处理的问题更多;开具的药物更少;开具的检查单更多;进行的巴氏涂片检查更多;提供的免疫接种更多;开具的糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)检查更多;为糖尿病患者提供的眼科医生和专职医疗人员转诊更多;提供的生活方式咨询更少,与医疗保健卡(HCC)持有者的会诊更少。调整后,仅归因于计算机使用的差异在于处方用药率、生活方式咨询、HCC持有者以及眼科医生转诊。还出现了另外三个差异——使用计算机的全科医生提供的专职医疗人员转诊更少,发现的抑郁症新病例更少,且开具抗抑郁药的医生更少。23项指标在调整前后均无差异。

结论

确定“最佳质量”是主观的。虽然文献和指南为许多指标提供了明确的参数,但其他一些指标则难以评判。总体而言,这两组之间几乎没有差异。本研究几乎没有发现证据支持澳大利亚全科医疗计算机化提高了为患者提供的护理质量这一说法。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验