We congratulate Wu et al. on their study, as monitoring of records is important for clinical and medicolegal reasons, especially during the challenging transition towards paperless working in NHS hospitals [1,2,3]. However, we have concerns with their study methodology and conclusions.
New glaucoma referrals were reviewed at three sites with two different EPR systems at different stages of rollout and clinical engagement. They compared these to ‘pooled’ paper records from only two sites with no mention of possible use of structured paper proformas or paramedical staff collating data. Conclusions are based on data sampled possibly randomly over 5 years (2010–2015), including a changeover phase in 2014, which itself could have contributed to poorer outcomes. Separating the values for the EPR systems also provides some clues on poor quality (Table 1). Both systems may have been used simultaneously at Moorfields during transition when it was left to clinician preference as it is difficult to explain how 1 in 10 new referrals did not have eye pressures recorded. Gonioscopy recording in EPR is significantly different to paper records and, as expected, had low entries but, interestingly, did not differ between both systems.
We also tracked data quality over 1 year in our eye casualty after EPR (Medisoft) introduction, and noted consistent issues with use of free text entries due to lack of familiarity, inadequate data fields and few specified forced choice defaults. Moreover, as staff changed during this period there was a gradual deterioration in record quality (Table 2). We recommend regular electronic record audits with continued targeted training following mandatory induction. Feedback via user groups can facilitate software changes in future EPR versions allowing better integration with workflow.
Although Wu et al. rightly raise awareness on this issue, it is important to not make biased and unsupported conclusions on electronic working, e.g., electronic data is more accessible, but data breaches may not be more common, but just more easily tracked. EPR has the power to truly transform healthcare, but we need to focus on the roll out to ensure better integration with workflow to fully realize their potential.
References
Wu CHK, Luk SMH, Holder RL, Murdoch I. How do paper and electronic records compare for completeness? A three centre study. Eye. 2018;32:1232–6.
Somner J, Hingorani M, Sparrow J. Electronic medical records – Standards for UK Ophthalmology Services. London: The Royal College of Ophthalmologists; 2018.
Health and social care information centre, academy of medical royal colleges. Standards for the clinical structure and content of patient records. London: HSCIC; 2013.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Qadir, M.O., Kadyan, A. Comment on: How do paper and electronic records compare for completeness? A three centre study. Eye 33, 1665–1666 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-019-0465-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-019-0465-4