Kontopantelis Evangelos, Stevens Richard John, Helms Peter J, Edwards Duncan, Doran Tim, Ashcroft Darren M
NIHR School for Primary Care Research, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
BMJ Open. 2018 Feb 28;8(2):e020738. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020738.
UK primary care databases (PCDs) are used by researchers worldwide to inform clinical practice. These databases have been primarily tied to single clinical computer systems, but little is known about the adoption of these systems by primary care practices or their geographical representativeness. We explore the spatial distribution of clinical computing systems and discuss the implications for the longevity and regional representativeness of these resources.
Cross-sectional study.
English primary care clinical computer systems.
7526 general practices in August 2016.
Spatial mapping of family practices in England in 2016 by clinical computer system at two geographical levels, the lower Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG, 209 units) and the higher National Health Service regions (14 units). Data for practices included numbers of doctors, nurses and patients, and area deprivation.
Of 7526 practices, Egton Medical Information Systems (EMIS) was used in 4199 (56%), SystmOne in 2552 (34%) and Vision in 636 (9%). Great regional variability was observed for all systems, with EMIS having a stronger presence in the West of England, London and the South; SystmOne in the East and some regions in the South; and Vision in London, the South, Greater Manchester and Birmingham.
PCDs based on single clinical computer systems are geographically clustered in England. For example, Clinical Practice Research Datalink and The Health Improvement Network, the most popular primary care databases in terms of research outputs, are based on the Vision clinical computer system, used by <10% of practices and heavily concentrated in three major conurbations and the South. Researchers need to be aware of the analytical challenges posed by clustering, and barriers to accessing alternative PCDs need to be removed.
全球研究人员利用英国基层医疗数据库(PCDs)为临床实践提供信息。这些数据库主要与单一临床计算机系统相关联,但对于基层医疗机构采用这些系统的情况及其地理代表性了解甚少。我们探讨临床计算系统的空间分布,并讨论这些资源的长期可用性和区域代表性的影响。
横断面研究。
英国基层医疗临床计算机系统。
2016年8月的7526家全科医疗诊所。
按临床计算机系统在两个地理层面(较低层级的临床委托小组(CCG,209个单位)和较高层级的国民保健服务地区(14个单位))对2016年英格兰的家庭医疗诊所进行空间映射。诊所数据包括医生、护士和患者数量以及地区贫困情况。
在7526家诊所中,4199家(56%)使用埃顿医疗信息系统(EMIS),2552家(34%)使用SystmOne,636家(9%)使用Vision。所有系统都存在很大的地区差异,EMIS在英格兰西部、伦敦和南部地区使用更为普遍;SystmOne在东部和南部的一些地区使用较多;Vision在伦敦、南部、大曼彻斯特和伯明翰使用较多。
基于单一临床计算机系统的基层医疗数据库在英格兰呈现地理聚集性。例如,临床实践研究数据链和健康改善网络是研究产出方面最受欢迎的基层医疗数据库,它们基于Vision临床计算机系统,使用该系统的诊所不到10%,且高度集中在三个主要城市聚集区和南部地区。研究人员需要意识到聚集带来的分析挑战,并且需要消除获取替代基层医疗数据库的障碍。