eLetters is an online forum for ongoing peer review. To submit an eLetter please go to the article you wish to respond to and click on the link that reads "eLetters: Submit a Response." Submission of eLetters are open to all health care professionals and experts in related fields.

eLetters to:

ARTICLE:
William G. Adams, Adriana M. Mann, and Howard Bauchner
Use of an Electronic Medical Record Improves the Quality of Urban Pediatric Primary Care
Pediatrics 2003; 111: 626-632 [Abstract] [Full text] [PDF]
*eLetters: Submit a response to this article

eLetters published:

[Read eLetters] Quality or Inequality?
MJ Sexton   (17 March 2003)

Quality or Inequality? 17 March 2003
  Top
MJ Sexton,
Pediatric Radiation Oncologist
Peter MacCAllum CAncer Institute Melbourne Australia

Send letter to journal:
Re: Quality or Inequality?

msexton{at}infoxchange.net.au MJ Sexton

This paper raises a number of interesting questions about assessment of quality in pediatric primary care. The most obvious, of course, is what definition of quality is appropriate in this study and whether the outcome studied is of itself an adequate assessment of quality. The authors address the perspective of the provider physician whose main concern understandably is the effectiveness of their clinical practice. Little attention is paid to the dimensions of quality care from the other stake holders perspective such as access, safety and acceptability for the patient and efficiency, including cost, from the funder’s (government and taxpayers) point of view. In fact the authors point out that the users of the EMR system noted an increase in time of consultation, a negative effect on efficiency and therefore access to other patients and reduced eye to eye contact during the consult. No assessment is made as to whether the patients perceived this reduced access to the physician as far as both waiting times and interpersonal communication and attention during the consult as a reduction in the quality of their care. Users of the EMR demonstrated an improvement in risk assessment due to the prompting in the computerized system and an improvement in anticipatory guidance with the use of multilingual handouts. The paper based records did not have the risk assessment prompts. Could the same be achieved simply by updating the paper records to include better prompting in key areas and by providing adequate educational handouts in each clinic room without sacrificing other aspects of quality. As the authors point out there is no evidence that an increase in risk assessment translates to any better health outcomes. Widespread health reforms throughout the developed world are pushing for changes in clinician behaviors and new technological approaches to patient care in order to improve quality of care. We must be sure that in our haste to implement change we do not neglect to address all dimensions of care.