Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Simon De Lusignan

Publications and source records attributed to Simon De Lusignan.

4 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2003

Using the Internet to conduct surveys of health professionals: a valid alternative?

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine whether Internet-based surveys of health professionals can provide a valid alternative to traditional survey methods. METHODS: (i) Systematic review of published Internet-based surveys of health professionals focusing on criteria of external validity, specifically sample representativeness and response bias. (ii) Internet-based survey of GPs, exploring attitudes about using an Internet-based decision support system for the management of familial cancer. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 17 Internet-based surveys of health professionals. Whilst most studies sampled from professional e-directories, some studies drew on unknown denominator populations by placing survey questionnaires on open web sites or electronic discussion groups. Twelve studies reported response rates, which ranged from nine to 94%. Sending follow-up reminders resulted in a substantial increase in response rates. In our own survey of GPs, a total of 268 GPs participated (adjusted response rate = 52.4%) after five e-mail reminders. A further 72 GPs responded to a brief telephone survey of non-respondents. Respondents to the Internet survey were more likely to be male and had significantly greater intentions to use Internet-based decision support than non-respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Internet-based surveys provide an attractive alternative to postal and telephone surveys of health professionals, but they raise important technical and methodological issues which should be carefully considered before widespread implementation. The major obstacle is external validity, and specifically how to obtain a representative sample and adequate response rate. Controlled access to a national list of NHSnet e-mail addresses of health professionals could provide a solution.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2003

Three steps to data quality.

BACKGROUND: The quality of data in general practice clinical information systems varies enormously. This variability jeopardizes the proposed national strategy for an integrated care records service and the capacity of primary care organisations to respond coherently to the demands of clinical governance and the proposed quality-based general practice contract. This is apparent in the difficulty in automating the audit process and in comparing aggregated data from different practices. In an attempt to provide data of adequate quality to support such operational needs, increasing emphasis is being placed on the standardisation of data recording. OBJECTIVE: To develop a conceptual framework to facilitate the recording of standardised data within primary care. METHOD: A multiprofessional group of primary care members from the South Thames Research Network examined leading guidelines for best practice. Using the nominal group technique the group prioritized the information needs of primary care organisations for managing coronary heart disease according to current evidence. RESULTS: Information needs identified were prioritized and stratified into a functional framework. CONCLUSION: It has been possible within the context of a primary care research network to produce a framework for standardising data collection. Motivation of front-line clinicians was achieved through the incorporation of their views into the synthesis of the dataset.

Comorbidity↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Does feedback improve the quality of computerized medical records in primary care?

OBJECTIVE: The MediPlus database collects anonymized information from generalpractice computer systems in the United Kingdom, for research purposes. Data quality markers are collated and fed back to the participating general practitioners. The authors examined whether this feedback had a significant effect on data quality. METHODS: The data quality markers used since 1992 were examined. The authors determined whether the feedback of "useful" data quality markers led to a statistically significant improvement in these markers. Environmental influences on data quality from outside the scheme were controlled for by examination of the data quality scores of new entrants. RESULTS: Three quality markers improved significantly over the period of the study. These were the use of highly specific "lower-level" Read Codes (p=0.004) and the linkage of repeat prescriptions (p=0.03) and acute prescriptions (p=0.04) to diagnosis. Clinicians who fall below the target level for linkage of repeat prescriptions to diagnosis receive more detailed feedback; the effect of this was also statistically significant (p<0.01.) CONCLUSIONS: The feedback of four of the ten markers had a significant effect on data quality. The effect of more detailed feedback appears to have had a greater effect. The lessons learned from this approach may help improve the quality of electronic medical records in the United Kingdom and elsewhere.

Humans↗