Skip to main content
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA logoLink to Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA
. 1995 May-Jun;2(3):191–196. doi: 10.1136/jamia.1995.95338872

Capturing and using clinical outcome data: implications for information systems design.

R D Zielstorff 1
PMCID: PMC116253  PMID: 7614120

Abstract

There is an urgent need to capture and record data related to clinical outcomes, but there are many barriers. The range of problems includes lack of agreement on conceptualization of the term "outcome," inadequate measures of outcomes, and inadequate information systems to capture and manipulate data that would reflect outcomes. This article focuses on information system requirements to capture, store, and utilize clinical outcome data. For greatest accuracy, outcome data should be captured as close to the source as possible, including direct data capture from patients themselves and from their families. To make maximum use of outcome data, systems must be designed to 1) store data in multipurpose databases; 2) share data across different platforms; 3) link outcome data to other data that might influence or explain outcomes; 4) allow querying of the data by authorized personnel; and 5) protect patient confidentiality.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (584.4 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Beal J. A., Betz C. L. Intervention studies in pediatric nursing research: a decade of review. Pediatr Nurs. 1992 Nov-Dec;18(6):586–590. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Denton I. Telemedicine: a new paradigm. Healthc Inform. 1993 Nov;10(11):44-6, 48, 50. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Hegyvary S. T. Issues in outcomes research. J Nurs Qual Assur. 1991 Jan;5(2):1–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Higgins M., McCaughan D., Griffiths M., Carr-Hill R. Assessing the outcomes of nursing care. J Adv Nurs. 1992 May;17(5):561–568. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1992.tb02833.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Lang N. M., Marek K. D. The classification of patient outcomes. J Prof Nurs. 1990 May-Jun;6(3):158–163. doi: 10.1016/s8755-7223(05)80146-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Lumsdon K., Hagland M. Mapping care. Hosp Health Netw. 1993 Oct 20;67(20):34–40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Marek K. D. Outcome measurement in nursing. J Nurs Qual Assur. 1989 Nov;4(1):1–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Mou S. M., Sunderji S. G., Gall S., How H., Patel V., Gray M., Kayne H. L., Corwin M. Multicenter randomized clinical trial of home uterine activity monitoring for detection of preterm labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991 Oct;165(4 Pt 1):858–866. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(91)90429-u. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Nadzam D. M. Infection control indicators in critical care settings. Heart Lung. 1992 Sep-Oct;21(5):477–481. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Patel U. H., Babbs C. F. A computer-based, automated, telephonic system to monitor patient progress in the home setting. J Med Syst. 1992 Jun;16(2-3):101–112. doi: 10.1007/BF00996591. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Reiser S. J. The era of the patient. Using the experience of illness in shaping the missions of health care. JAMA. 1993 Feb 24;269(8):1012–1017. doi: 10.1001/jama.269.8.1012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Relman A. S. Assessment and accountability: the third revolution in medical care. N Engl J Med. 1988 Nov 3;319(18):1220–1222. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198811033191810. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Roper W. L., Winkenwerder W., Hackbarth G. M., Krakauer H. Effectiveness in health care. An initiative to evaluate and improve medical practice. N Engl J Med. 1988 Nov 3;319(18):1197–1202. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198811033191805. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Sabatino F., Koska M. T., Burke M., Hudson T. Clinical quality initiatives: the search for meaningful--and accurate--measures. Hospitals. 1992 Mar 5;66(5):26-32, 34, 36-40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Ware J. E., Jr, Sherbourne C. D. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6):473–483. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Wennberg J. E. Outcomes research, cost containment, and the fear of health care rationing. N Engl J Med. 1990 Oct 25;323(17):1202–1204. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199010253231710. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES