Advanced search
Publication Cover
Scandinavian Journal of Urology Volume 56, 2022 - Issue 2
Journal homepage
1,919
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Article

Time difference in retrieving clinical information in Patient-overview Prostate Cancer compared to electronic health records

Charlotte Alverbratta Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, SwedenCorrespondence[email protected]
View further author information
,
Hanna Vikmanb Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, SwedenView further author information
,
Marie Hjälm Erikssonc Department of Surgery, Saint Göran Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden;d Department of Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, SwedenView further author information
,
Pär Stattinb Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, SwedenView further author information
&
Ingela Franck Lissbranta Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, SwedenORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-8612-9814View further author information
ORCID Icon
Pages 95-101 | Received 07 Jun 2021, Accepted 30 Nov 2021, Published online: 02 Feb 2022

References

  • Sartor O, de Bono JS. Metastatic prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(7):645–657.
  • Holmes A, Kelly BD, Perera M, et al. A systematic scoping review of multidisciplinary cancer team and decision-making in the management of men with advanced prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2021;39(2):297–306.
  • Neve K, Kragh Iversen R, Andersen CK. Is it possible for nurses and doctors to form a useful clinical overview of an EHR? Stud Health Technol Inform. 2006;122:314–319.
  • Krist AH. Electronic health record innovations for healthier patients and happier doctors. J Am Board Fam Med. 2015;28(3):299–302.
  • Christensen T, Grimsmo A. Instant availability of patient records, but diminished availability of patient information: a multi-method study of GP's use of electronic patient records. BMC Med Infor Decis Mak. 2008;8(12):12.
  • Moacdieh N, Sarter N. Clutter in electronic medical records: examining its performance and attentional costs using eye tracking. Hum Factors. 2015;57(4):591–606.
  • Cazzaniga W, Ventimiglia E, Alfano M, et al. Mini review on the use of clinical cancer registers for prostate cancer: the national prostate cancer register (NPCR) of Sweden. Front Med (Lausanne). 2019;6:51.
  • Franck Lissbrant I, Hjälm Eriksson M, Lambe M, et al. Set-up and preliminary results from the patient-overview prostate cancer. Longitudinal registration of treatment of advanced prostate cancer in the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden. Scand J Urol. 2020;54(3):227–234.
  • Stattin P, Sandin F, Sandbäck T, et al. Dashboard report on performance on select quality indicators to cancer care providers. Scand J Urol. 2016;50(1):21–28.
  • Dynareg/Lagerros IA. [Internet]. Sweden: Lagerros C; 2020. [cited 2021 June 4]. Available from: http://dynareg.se.
  • Brooke J, et al. SUS: a “quick and dirty” usability scale. In: Jordan PW, Thomas B, Weerdmeester BA, editors. Usability evaluation in industry. London: Taylor & Francis; 1996. p. 189–194.
  • Bangor A, Kortum P, Miller J. Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J Usability Stud. 2009;4(3):114–123.
  • Sullivan F, Mitchell E. Has general practitioner computing made a difference to patient care? A systematic review of published reports. BMJ. 1995;311(7009):848–852.
  • West VL, Borland D, Hammond WE. Innovative information visualization of electronic health record data: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015;22(2):330–339.
  • Khairat S, Coleman C, Ottmar P, et al. Physicians’ gender and their use of electronic health records: findings from a mixed-methods usability study. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019;26(12):1505–1514.
  • Evans RS. Electronic health records: then, now, and in the future. Yearb Med Inform. 2016 May 20;Suppl 1:S48–S61.
  • Unni P, Staes C, Weeks H, et al. Why aren’t they happy? An analysis of end-user satisfaction with electronic health records. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2016;2016:2026–2035.
  • Williams DC, Warren RW, Ebeling M, et al. Physician use of electronic health records: Survey study assessing factors associated with provider reported satisfaction and perceived patient impact. JMIR Med Inform. 2019;7(2):e10949.
  • Boyd AD, Young CD, Amatayakul M, et al. Developing visual thinking in the electronic health record. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2017;245:308–312.
  • Ovretveit J, Keller C, Hvitfeldt Forsberg H, et al. Continuous innovation: developing and using a clinical database with new technology for patient-centred care-the case of the Swedish quality register for arthritis. Int J Qual Health Care. 2013;25(2):118–124.
  • Marrone G, Mellgren Å, Eriksson LE, et al. High concordance between Self-Reported adherence, treatment outcome and satisfaction with care using a Nine-Item health questionnaire in InfCareHIV. PLoS One. 2016;11(6):e0156916.
  • Gisslén M, Svedhem V, Lindborg L, et al. Sweden, the first country to achieve the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS)/World Health Organization (WHO) 90-90-90 continuum of HIV care targets. HIV Med. 2017;18(4):305–307.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.