Journal article icon

Journal article

Spatial distribution of clinical computer systems in primary care in England in 2016 and implications for primary care electronic medical record databases: a cross-sectional population study

Abstract:
UK primary care databases (PCDs) are used by researchers worldwide to inform clinical practice. These databases have been primarily tied to single clinical computer systems, but little is known about the adoption of these systems by primary care practices or their geographical representativeness. We explore the spatial distribution of clinical computing systems and discuss the implications for the longevity and regional representativeness of these resources.Cross-sectional study.English primary care clinical computer systems.7526 general practices in August 2016.Spatial mapping of family practices in England in 2016 by clinical computer system at two geographical levels, the lower Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG, 209 units) and the higher National Health Service regions (14 units). Data for practices included numbers of doctors, nurses and patients, and area deprivation.Of 7526 practices, Egton Medical Information Systems (EMIS) was used in 4199 (56%), SystmOne in 2552 (34%) and Vision in 636 (9%). Great regional variability was observed for all systems, with EMIS having a stronger presence in the West of England, London and the South; SystmOne in the East and some regions in the South; and Vision in London, the South, Greater Manchester and Birmingham.PCDs based on single clinical computer systems are geographically clustered in England. For example, Clinical Practice Research Datalink and The Health Improvement Network, the most popular primary care databases in terms of research outputs, are based on the Vision clinical computer system, used by <10% of practices and heavily concentrated in three major conurbations and the South. Researchers need to be aware of the analytical challenges posed by clustering, and barriers to accessing alternative PCDs need to be removed.
Publication status:
Published
Peer review status:
Peer reviewed

Actions


Access Document


Files:
Publisher copy:
10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020738

Authors


More by this author
Role:
Author
ORCID:
0000-0001-6450-5815
More by this author
Institution:
University of Oxford
Division:
Medical Sciences Division
Department:
Primary Care Health Sciences; PHC-Stats
Oxford college:
Kellogg College
Role:
Author
ORCID:
0000-0002-9258-4060


Publisher:
BMJ Publishing Group
Journal:
BMJ Open More from this journal
Volume:
8
Issue:
2
Article number:
e020738
Publication date:
2018-02-28
Acceptance date:
2017-12-04
DOI:
ISSN:
2044-6055
Pmid:
29490968


Language:
English
Keywords:
Pubs id:
pubs:827737
UUID:
uuid:ab92c275-c474-422e-bd6f-c73e4de92930
Local pid:
pubs:827737
Source identifiers:
827737
Deposit date:
2018-03-23

Terms of use



Views and Downloads






If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record

TO TOP