Abstract
Purpose
To compare patient data retrieval between electronic patient record systems (Eyetrack®) and conventional paper records (CPRs).
Methods
A total of 20 long term glaucoma patient records held on Eyetrack were randomised into two collections with 10 CPRs and 10 Eyetrack records in each collection. The Eyetrack records of one collection were the CPRs of the other collection and vice versa. Four doctors, as two groups, were assessed on a separate collection of records. The time taken to answer 10 questions and the accuracy were assessed. Comparison was made of the answers between the two formats. A month later each group was assessed on the 10 CPRs of the other collection. An expert Eyetrack user was assessed on only the 20 Eyetrack notes. Comparison was made between the 20 CPRs the doctors were assessed on and the 20 eyetrack records.
Results
In the first comparison, the mean time for all the doctors to answer the questions on a CPR was 324.4(±106.0) s compared to 104.8(±34.0) s for Eyetrack(Mann–Whitney, P<0.01). Mean accuracy for a CPR was 84.0%(±13.0%) compared to 98.0%(±4.0%) for Eyetrack(Mann–Whitney, P<0.01). Comparing the expert Eyetrack user with the CPR showed a mean time for Eyetrack of 96.6(±34.8) s compared with 283.7(±63.9) s for CPR(Mann–Whitney, P<0.0001). Mean accuracy for Eyetrack was 97.5%(±7.2%) compared to 82.0%(±8.7%) for CPRs(Mann–Whitney, P<0.0001).
Conclusions
An improvement of 3 min 40 s per record was observed with Eyetrack. Accuracy was also improved. Similar results were also found comparing an expert Eyetrack user with CPRs.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
NHS Executive. Information for Health. DoH: London, 1998.
Sullivan F, Mitchell E . What difference has general practice computing made to patient care? A systemic review of published reports. BMJ 1995; 311: 848–852.
Hippisley-Cox J, Pringle M, Cater R, Wynn A, Hammersley V, Coupland C et al. The electronic patient record in primary care- regression or progression? A cross sectional study. BMJ 2003; 326: 1439–1443.
Aylward GW, Parmar DN . Information technology in ophthalmology-experience with an electronic patient record. Br J Ophthalmol 1999; 83: 1264–1267.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Presented as a poster at ARVO 2004 and EGS 2004.
The authors have no commercial interest in Eyetrack®.
Appendix A Eyetrack® study questions
Appendix A Eyetrack® study questions
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Suleman, H., Vernon, S., Ainsworth, G. et al. Eyetrack® (ET) vs the conventional paper record (CPR): a study comparing the accuracy and speed of data retrieval from glaucoma patient records. Eye 20, 80–83 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.eye.6701813
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.eye.6701813
