More information about text formats
The Smoking Test was run on our practice, 3 years after the initial assessment was conducted. And some learning can be shared:
-The test was quick to run, even though original reports were not saved. In consequence, three new reports were created, regarding the type of smoking status considered, and one merging records with the 3 entries, followed by collecting in a spreadsheet the three codes with their last entry date. The software allows to collect specific entries without needing to open the records and to export that data. Using simple formulas in excel (Deducting two dates, to see if the difference of days was negative or positive) it was matter of minutes to find again the number of errors.
-Trying to correct entries took a lot of time, it was not completed. It was considered not necessarily beneficial, more when about half of the entries assessed were not ours, but from associated organisations. We share data, to improve patient care, but each organisation is responsible for their own quality, for their own entries. One could only request to mark entries in error to them. It means if any organisation, is doing similarly, sharing data entry with others, the reports need to be amended to specify which organisation data is to be entered in the searches. It should fix the location problem encountered.
-Looking at the data, one had to consider also a change in the report of "Never smoked" to fix the problem of currency. In our sample h...
-Looking at the data, one had to consider also a change in the report of "Never smoked" to fix the problem of currency. In our sample half of those entries in this particular report were preceding 2018, when we run the initial test. A simple fix is to run a report on this code looking only for entries done after last test. This report is the pivot of the process. It did not matter whether entries were done in last year regarding the other parameters, the error is determined by the presence of this code.
-Finally, in a digital world, where patients can enter data on their records through online questionnaires, clinicians need to be vigilant on the answers, as one case was noted of a patient stating that "never smoked|" this year when there are a number of entries of a smoker status in the past. It is not possible to challenge the answer in the consultation, but not to accept an entry to be added when it is known to be wrong.
In summary, location and currency problems can be easily fixed and direct patient entries need consideration.