This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Appendix and Tables All Versions of this Article: M1290v1 10/5/470    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Stausberg, J. Articles by Betzler, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Stausberg, J. Articles by Betzler, M.

Comparing Paper-based with Electronic Patient Records: Lessons Learned during a Study on Diagnosis and Procedure Codes

Affiliations of the authors: Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Medical Faculty, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany (JS); Department of General, Trauma and Vascular Surgery, Alfried Krupp Hospital, Essen, Germany (DK, MB); Institute for Medical Informatics, University of Lübeck, Germany (JI).

Correspondence and reprints: Priv.-Doz. Dr. med. Jürgen Stausberg, Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Medical Faculty, University of Duisburg-Essen, Hufelandstr. 55, D-45122 Essen, Germany; e-mail: <stausberg{at}uni-essen.de>.

Received for publication: 11/11/02; accepted for publication: 04/19/03.

Paper-based and electronic patient records generally are used in parallel to support different tasks. Many studies comparing their quality do not report sufficiently on the methods used. Few studies refer to the patient. Instead, most regard the paper record as the gold standard. Focusing on quality criteria, the current study compared the two records patient by patient, presuming that each might hold unique advantages. For surgical patients at a nonuniversity hospital, diagnosis and procedure codes from the hospital's electronic patient record (EPR set) were compared with the paper records (PPR set). Diagnosis coding from the paper-based patient record resulted in minor qualitative advantages. The EPR documentation showed potential advantages in both quality and quantity of procedure coding. As in many previous studies, the current study relied on a single individual to extract and transform contents from the paper record to compare PPR with EPR. The exploratory study, although limited, supports previous views of the complementary nature of paper and electronic records. The lessons learned from this study are that medical professionals should be cognizant of the possible discrepancies between paper and electronic information and look toward combining information from both records whenever appropriate. The inadequate methodology (transformations done by a single individual) used in the authors' study is typical of other studies in the field. The limited generalizability and restricted reproducibility of this commonly used approach emphasize the need to improve methods for comparing paper-based with electronic versions of a patient's chart.