Skip to main content
The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners logoLink to The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners
. 1986 Sep;36(290):405–406.

How bad are medical records? A review of the notes received by a practice

Brian G Mansfield
PMCID: PMC1960522  PMID: 3806485

Abstract

One hundred and fifty-five medical records received by a practice as a result of transfer of care were examined. It was found that the marital status was recorded for 30% of patients aged over 16 years and the occupation noted for only 15% of patients of working age. Twentythree per cent of the notes included a summary of the patient's history and 39% contained an immunization record. Of the notes for women aged between 16 and 60 years 48% contained a recent cervical smear report. This percentage increased to 61% for women aged 35—60 years. Of the entries examined 86.2% were legible. It is concluded that either doctors do not know as much about their patients as they should or they attempt to carry too much information in their heads.

Full text

PDF
405

Selected References

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

  1. Dawes K. S. Survey of general practice records. Br Med J. 1972 Jul 22;3(5820):219–223. doi: 10.1136/bmj.3.5820.219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Stuart D. Practical problems of improving records. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1981 Mar 7;282(6266):783–784. doi: 10.1136/bmj.282.6266.783. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners are provided here courtesy of Royal College of General Practitioners

RESOURCES