Cargando…
Handheld computers for data entry: high tech has its problems too
BACKGROUND: The use of handheld computers in medicine has increased in the last decade, they are now used in a variety of clinical settings. There is an underlying assumption that electronic data capture is more accurate that paper-based data methods have been rarely tested. This report documents a...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2007
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1804282/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17309807 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-8-5 |
_version_ | 1782132456008187904 |
---|---|
author | Shelby-James, Tania M Abernethy, Amy P McAlindon, Andrew Currow, David C |
author_facet | Shelby-James, Tania M Abernethy, Amy P McAlindon, Andrew Currow, David C |
author_sort | Shelby-James, Tania M |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The use of handheld computers in medicine has increased in the last decade, they are now used in a variety of clinical settings. There is an underlying assumption that electronic data capture is more accurate that paper-based data methods have been rarely tested. This report documents a study to compare the accuracy of hand held computer data capture versus more traditional paper-based methods. METHODS: Clinical nurses involved in a randomised controlled trial collected patient information on a hand held computer in parallel with a paper-based data form. Both sets of data were entered into an access database and the hand held computer data compared to the paper-based data for discrepancies. RESULTS: Error rates from the handheld computers were 67.5 error per 1000 fields, compared to the accepted error rate of 10 per 10,000 field for paper-based double data entry. Error rates were highest in field containing a default value. CONCLUSION: While popular with staff, unacceptable high error rates occurred with hand held computers. Training and ongoing monitoring are needed if hand held computers are to be used for clinical data collection. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-1804282 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2007 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-18042822007-02-24 Handheld computers for data entry: high tech has its problems too Shelby-James, Tania M Abernethy, Amy P McAlindon, Andrew Currow, David C Trials Letter to the Editor BACKGROUND: The use of handheld computers in medicine has increased in the last decade, they are now used in a variety of clinical settings. There is an underlying assumption that electronic data capture is more accurate that paper-based data methods have been rarely tested. This report documents a study to compare the accuracy of hand held computer data capture versus more traditional paper-based methods. METHODS: Clinical nurses involved in a randomised controlled trial collected patient information on a hand held computer in parallel with a paper-based data form. Both sets of data were entered into an access database and the hand held computer data compared to the paper-based data for discrepancies. RESULTS: Error rates from the handheld computers were 67.5 error per 1000 fields, compared to the accepted error rate of 10 per 10,000 field for paper-based double data entry. Error rates were highest in field containing a default value. CONCLUSION: While popular with staff, unacceptable high error rates occurred with hand held computers. Training and ongoing monitoring are needed if hand held computers are to be used for clinical data collection. BioMed Central 2007-02-20 /pmc/articles/PMC1804282/ /pubmed/17309807 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-8-5 Text en Copyright © 2007 Shelby-James et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Letter to the Editor Shelby-James, Tania M Abernethy, Amy P McAlindon, Andrew Currow, David C Handheld computers for data entry: high tech has its problems too |
title | Handheld computers for data entry: high tech has its problems too |
title_full | Handheld computers for data entry: high tech has its problems too |
title_fullStr | Handheld computers for data entry: high tech has its problems too |
title_full_unstemmed | Handheld computers for data entry: high tech has its problems too |
title_short | Handheld computers for data entry: high tech has its problems too |
title_sort | handheld computers for data entry: high tech has its problems too |
topic | Letter to the Editor |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1804282/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17309807 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-8-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT shelbyjamestaniam handheldcomputersfordataentryhightechhasitsproblemstoo AT abernethyamyp handheldcomputersfordataentryhightechhasitsproblemstoo AT mcalindonandrew handheldcomputersfordataentryhightechhasitsproblemstoo AT currowdavidc handheldcomputersfordataentryhightechhasitsproblemstoo |