📇 Rhumatologue · MANTES LA JOLIE CEDEX · (78) · Salarié
Chargement de la fiche…
Chargement de la fiche…
MonRhumato.fr utilise des cookies pour mesurer l'audience (statistiques) et améliorer le site. Aucune donnée de santé identifiable n'est jamais collectée. Politique de confidentialité.
Votre choix est conservé 13 mois (durée max CNIL). Vous pouvez le modifier à tout moment via Préférences cookies.
1 raison identifiée
Délais de RDV courts dans la région
86.1 rhumatos / 100 000 hab. — département bien doté
✨ Génération du profil synthétique IA en cours…
CH FRANCOIS QUESNAY MANTES
2 BD SULLY, 78201 MANTES LA JOLIE CEDEX
Secteur de conventionnement non disponible (médecin hospitalier ou non présent dans l'Annuaire santé CNAM des libéraux conventionnés).
Données ANS publiques (Licence Ouverte 2.0) · Enrichissements MonRhumato 100 % opt-in · Toute personne référencée peut demander la suppression ou la rectification.
Lien Doctolib = recherche Google site:doctolib.fr (le 1er résultat est presque toujours le profil correct s'il existe).
BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2003
Abstract Objective To determine whether Clinical Terms Version 3 provides greater accuracy and consistency in coding electronic patient records than the Read Codes 5 byte set. Design Randomised crossover trial. Clinicians coded patient records using both schemes after being randomised in pairs to use one scheme before the other. Setting 10 general practices in urban, suburban, and rural environments in Norfolk. Participants 10 general practitioners. Source of data Concepts were collected from records of 100 patient encounters. Main outcome measures Percentage of coded choices ranked as being exact representations of the original terms; percentage of cases where coding choice of paired general practitioners was identical; length of time taken to find a code. Results A total of 995 unique concepts were collected. Exact matches were more common with Clinical Terms (70% (95% confidence interval 67% to 73%)) than with Read Codes (50% (47% to 53%)) (P < 0.001), and this difference was significant for each of the 10 participants individually. The pooled proportion with exact and identical matches by paired participants was greater for Clinical Terms (0.58 (0.55 to 0.61)) than Read Codes (0.36 (0.33 to 0.39)) (P < 0.001). The time taken to code with Clinical Terms (30 seconds per term) was not significantly longer than that for Read Codes. Conclusions Clinical Terms Version 3 performed significantly better than Read Codes 5 byte set in capturing the meaning of concepts. These findings suggest that improved coding accuracy in primary care electronic patient records can be achieved with the use of such a clinical terminology.
Source PubMed · Recherche par auteur (homonymes possibles, vérifier l'affiliation).
BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2003 · Clinical Trial
Brown PJ, Warmington V, Laurence M, Prevost AT