Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Five years’ experience with a primary care electronic patient record in a community sexual and reproductive health service
Free
  1. Lesley Bacon1,
  2. Dale Coley2,
  3. Eleanor Draeger3,
  4. Jacqueline Evans4
  1. 1Consultant in Sexual and Reproductive Health, Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust, London, UK
  2. 2IT Analyst, Sexual and Reproductive Health, Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust, London, UK
  3. 3Genitourinary Medicine Consultant, Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust, London, UK
  4. 4Associate Specialist in Sexual and Reproductive Health, Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Lesley Bacon, Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust – Sexual and Reproductive Health, Waldron Health Centre, Amersham Vale, London SE14 6LD, UK; lesleyebacon1234{at}aol.com

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Why was change needed?

Lewisham Sexual and Reproductive Health (SRH) service is one of the largest in the UK with approximately 60 000 attendances a year. It works from four centres spread across a deprived inner-city area of London. In 2008 we changed to an electronic patient record for the following reasons.

▸ We ran out of space. In 2007 it became obvious that the approximately 80 000 sets of paper notes that were kept in the four centres were presenting an insuperable storage problem. We also had the occasional misfiled set of notes, which presented a clinical governance risk.1 ,2

▸ We needed to be able to produce data for audit and mandatory reports more flexibly than was possible with paper records. Our previous system of recording data (on an optical reader sheet that was scanned and then analysed) was far too time consuming and could not be changed as requirements altered.

▸ We needed to be able to see all our records in all four of our centres. Many of our patients use our centres interchangeably and this led to frustrations and inefficiencies, not least because of the time taken for notes to be transported between clinics. Our senior nurses now lead more clinic sessions; telephone advice from senior doctors is safer if the doctor can see the complete record from a distance.

▸ We needed to employ staff more efficiently. One important consideration for us was that the administrative staff could be freed up from mundane chores such as preparing blank sets of notes, and be able to devote more time to front-of-house work and to managing our increasing numbers of pathology results (e.g. those from the chlamydia screening programme); 38 hours of results management per week were gained in this way.

What changes did we make?

We investigated several information technology (IT) systems …

View Full Text

Linked Articles

  • Highlights from this issue
    British Medical Journal Publishing Group