Grimsmo A, Grimstad S A, Lilleholt O, Snoen S E, Storset B
Samfunnsmedisinsk forskningssenter Surnadal, Universitetet i Trondheim.
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1994 Jun 30;114(17):1983-7.
A project was carried out to study the usefulness of ordinary data from computer-based journals for comparing practices. 20 general practitioners from four municipalities participated for four months in 1992. The computer-based journal provides accurate information on the number and kind of contacts with patients, and on who visits the general practitioner. It also tells what is done at each contact, such as a referral, prescription or laboratory tests. Using the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) even the most common diagnoses do not account for more than 3% of the consultations. The practice of the different doctors varies considerably as regards classifying consultations on a symptom level (ICPC 1-29) or a diagnosis level (ICPC 70-99). The results brought to light marked differences with regard to what general practitioners do, and what kind of problems their patients present. The patient populations differed to a lesser degree with respect to sex, age and social status. The findings provided an interesting and useful platform for group discussions among the participating doctors.
开展了一个项目，以研究基于计算机的期刊中的常规数据对比较医疗实践的有用性。1992年，来自四个市镇的20名全科医生参与了为期四个月的研究。基于计算机的期刊提供了有关与患者接触的次数和类型以及谁去看全科医生的准确信息。它还能说明每次接触时所做的事情，例如转诊、开处方或进行实验室检查。使用国际初级保健分类法（ICPC），即使是最常见的诊断在会诊中所占比例也不超过3%。不同医生在根据症状级别（ICPC 1 - 29）或诊断级别（ICPC 70 - 99）对会诊进行分类方面差异很大。结果揭示了全科医生的行为以及他们的患者所呈现的问题类型存在显著差异。患者群体在性别、年龄和社会地位方面差异较小。这些发现为参与研究的医生之间的小组讨论提供了一个有趣且有用的平台。
