Volume 2. Nightmare Findings 

 Volume Editor:  Rupert Fawdry

To see a sample page Click here

                 Discussion Link: http://eepd.org.uk/?p=487

 

"We will never get Medical IT systems to work effectively until we accept the sheer size of the problem"

Summary

The remnants of my original massive attempt to document in a logical chronological sequence as many as possible of all those data items which some group, somewhere, has reasonably concluded to be so important that they merited being printed in a printed paper maternity or neonatal record or proforma, or to be included in a current official or proposed paper or electronic data-set.

This volume also includes a detailed analysis of a) Problems with Booking data in 1979 and b) exactly the same kind of problem as still identified in Caesarean Section Proformas in 2007 

See www.fawdry.info/eepd/02_ngt/CSProf.pdf√

  RF (Updated 5 August 2010)

Introduction 

When I began what, over the past 30 years, has now become the EEPD I started by analysing, on small paper filing cards (while sitting in a windowless outpatient records store in Edinburgh), all the data items which I found in existing paper records. This quickly led to the realisation of how locally variable such records could be and how complex the use of computers to help in maternity care would become.

My first IT paper, published in 1984 was entitled “Ante-natal records: What are we asking?“    www.fawdry.info/eepd/02_ngt/What.pdf√  (4 pages)

In summary I discovered that, although more data is regularly collected from a greater proportion of humanity in the antenatal booking process than any other data collecting activity anywhere at any time in the whole world, it was clear that there was no universally agreed logical criteria for deciding what we should or should not be recording.

For that paper I just analysed the items considered worthy of inclusion in the printed case-notes used for the initial assessment (”booking“) history in the 41 teaching hospitals in the United Kingdom.

571 different items were recorded; although the average number per hospital was 80 (Range 12 - 150).

Only 12 out of the 571 data items were universal!  Only 29 out of 571 data items were found to be present in more than 75% of case records

And only 52 were present in more than 50% of records. www.fawdry.info/eepd/02_ngt/Percent.pdf√

Numerous items were only found in 1-5 records.  www.fawdry.info/eepd/02_ngt/Items.pdf√ (21 pages)

The final result of this analysis of paper records has been the theoretical concept of “The Nightmare Document“  The aim of this would have been to list in a logical sequence all those data items which someone somewhere has reasonably concluded to be so important that they merited being printed in at least one printed paper maternity or neonatal record. 

In the event the complexity has proved so great that the task has not been (and probably never will be) completed. But what quickly becomes apparent is that no-one would have the time to enter onto a computer database every proposed item regarding every expectant mother; and more important that no-one seemed to be addressing the question as to what criteria should be used to decide what should and what should not be entered. Selection and wording seemed universally to depend on the particular views of those directly involved in each different version.  In the past 30 years the situation is if anything even worse as can be seen from many other parts of the EEPD.

Due to lack of resources the existing nightmare list is by no means complete.  It does however, even in its unfinished state, vividly illustrate the dilemma. (For a proposed solution see my article on living with two unavoidable hybrids using the link below.)

Conclusion

No progress can be made in the logical creation of Electronic Patient Records without fully coming to terms with the existence, in every area of medicine, of such Nightmare Documents.  The reason for this and the potential solution is fully discussed in my published paper entitled ”The Future of Electronic  Records in Acute Hospital Medicine: Coping with two unavoidable hybrids and a potentially infinite workload”. www.fawdry.info/eepd/01_ess/b_eprs/B03_Hybrids.pdf√

Only when those in the health care IT industry fully accept such complexity will we have a reliable foundation for future progress.  So far the current situation is in my experience still seems to be best illustrated by the chasm picture you will find on www.fawdry.info/eepd/00_ima/poster/07_Chasm.pdf√ and my attempt to remedy the situation by my hills and mountains picture [www.fawdry.info/eepd/00_ima/ohps/Mountain.pdf]√

 

Rupert Fawdry.  (Updated 3 Aug 2010)

 ================================================================================== 

 

Volume 2. Nightmare Findings. Contents so far

Data items printed in Case Records or Proformas

 

A. Caesarean Section Printed Paper Proformas (2005 analysis)

7 proformas, > 250 items, only 3 (nearly) identical!    

www.fawdry.info/eepd/02_ngt/CSProf.pdf√  (17 pages)

Some random samples of current U.K. Caesarean Section proformas

http://fawdry.info/eepd/12_frm/mat/e_event/Caesareans.pdf

 

B. Printed Items relevant to Antenatal History taking 

     (August 2007 version)

       Items so far documented here www.fawdry.info/eepd/02_ngt/aInit.pdf√ (18 pages)

 

C. What are we asking? (From 1985 paper)

       www.fawdry.info/eepd/02_ngt/What.pdf√ (4 pages)

Printed Items “In Common” out of 571 Items (1985 paper)

www.fawdry.info/eepd/02_ngt/Outof571.pdf√

How many Universal Items, How many in 75% and how many in 50% (1985 paper)

www.fawdry.info/eepd/02_ngt/Percent.pdf√

   Percentage of Pregnancy Records with each Item (From 1985 paper)