|
Electronic Clinical Records for
Physiotherapists
|
|
Christine Barry BAppSc, MPhysio1
Mark Jones,
BS, Cert PhysTher, MAppSc2
Karen Grimmer,
PhD3
Australia
1.
Coordinator of Computational Neuroscience Research Cluster,
University of Adelaide
2.
Senior Lecturer, Program Director of Coursework Masters Programs,
University of South Australia
3.
Director of the Centre for Allied Health Evidence, Associate
Professor, School of Health Sciences, University of South Australia
|
Citation:
Barry, C., Jones, M., Grimmer, K. Electronic clinical records for
physiotherapists. The Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and
Practice. Jan 2006. Volume 4 Number 1.
|
Abstract
Purpose: This pilot study compared traditional (paper-based) and
electronic (computerized) clinical physiotherapy records. The content
of the records and the software’s user acceptability were considered.
Methods: A neuro-musculoskeletal patient scenario involving two
encounters (initial and follow-up) was scripted and role-played to
each of three experienced physiotherapists (A, B and C). Participants
assessed the patient and made traditional clinical records. After
basic training in an electronic record system, they repeated the
assessments and made electronic records via a laptop computer. Three
experienced physiotherapists (A, D and E) each used their usual method
to write a clinical report and an electronic record to write a report
with the aid of the software’s report tool. The two participants who
wrote reports but did not assess the patient (D and E) received a
brief software demonstration just prior to writing the electronic
record report. The electronic and traditional clinical records and
reports were compared regarding their content and completion time.
Participants recorded their expectations and experience of learning
and using the electronic record system via questionnaires. Results:
Participants expressed initial apprehension regarding an unfamiliar
documentation system, but generally found the electronic system easy
to learn and use. Some would have preferred additional customization
options. All traditional records contained pages that lacked patient
identification details. The electronic records contained more details
related to symptoms, social circumstances and physical examination
findings. The participants used more time for assessment and recording
the initial examination when using the electronic system. Participants
reported easier data retrieval from the computerized records than from
the traditional records. Conclusions: The electronic clinical
record system may prompt more complete recording and facilitate better
patient record identification. These effects have implications for
patient care, communication between providers and clinicians’
medico-legal protection. Further research is needed to determine the
system’s efficiency and to clarify the impact of other characteristics
of electronic record systems for physiotherapists. |
|
Keywords
and terms: computer patient
record, electronic patient record, clinical record, physiotherapy,
physical therapy |
|