Clinical Governance and Laboratory Medicine: is the Electronic Medical Record our best friend or sworn enemy?

References

1. Crombie IK, Davies HT, Abraham SC, Du Florey C. The audit handbook: improving healthcare through clinical audit. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1994.Suche in Google Scholar

2. Smith CW. Florence nightingale. London: Constable, 1950.Suche in Google Scholar

3. Devlin HB. Audit and the quality of clinical care: a conceptual exploration. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1990; 2:3–14.Suche in Google Scholar

4. Fielding LP, Stewart-Brown S, Blesovsky L, Kearney G. Anastomic integrity after operations for large bowel cancer: a muticentre study. Br Med J 1980; 281:411–4.10.1136/bmj.281.6237.411Suche in Google Scholar

5. Williamson JD. Quality control, medical audit and the General Practitioner. J R Coll Gen Pract 1973; 23:697–706.Suche in Google Scholar

6. Department of Health. Working for patients. London: Stationery Office, 1989.Suche in Google Scholar

7. Alder Hey. Full extent of organ horror revealed. Nurs Times2001;97:5.Suche in Google Scholar

8. Bauchner H, Vinci R. What have we learnt from the Alder Hey affair? That monitoring physicians' performance is necessary to ensure good practice. Br Med J 2001; 322:309–10.10.1136/bmj.322.7282.309Suche in Google Scholar

9. Burton JL, Wells M. The Alder Hey affair. Arch Dis Child 202; 86:4–7.10.1136/adc.86.1.4Suche in Google Scholar

10. Burton JL, Wells M. The Alder Hey affair: implications for pathology practice. J Clin Pathol 2001; 54:820–3.10.1136/jcp.54.11.820Suche in Google Scholar

11. Dewar S, Boddington P. Returning to the Alder Hey report and its reporting: addressing confusions and improving inquiries. J Med Ethics 2004; 30:463–9.10.1136/jme.2002.002774Suche in Google Scholar

12. Glasper EA, Powell C. Lessons of Alder Hey: consent must be informed. Br J Nurs 2001; 10:213.10.12968/bjon.2001.10.4.12357Suche in Google Scholar

13. Hunter M. Alder Hey report condemns doctors, management, and coroner. Br Med J 2001; 322:255.10.1136/bmj.322.7281.255Suche in Google Scholar

14. Mason K, Laurie G. Consent or property? Dealing with the body and its parts in the shadow of Bristol and Alder Hey. Mod Law Rev 2001; 64:710–29.10.1111/1468-2230.00347Suche in Google Scholar

15. Baker R. Placing principle before expediency: the Shipman inquiry. Lancet 2005; 365:919–2.10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71059-XSuche in Google Scholar

16. Baker R. Implications of Harold Shipman for general practice. Postgrad Med J 2004; 80:303–6; discussion 307–8.10.1136/pgmj.2003.013110Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

17. Dimond B. Dr. Shipman: how could it have been prevented? Br J Nurs 2000; 9:129.Suche in Google Scholar

18. Dyer C. Shipman inquiry recommends tighter rules on controlled drugs. Br Med J 2004; 329:188.10.1136/bmj.329.7459.188-bSuche in Google Scholar

19. Dyer C. Shipman inquiry calls for major changes in death certification. Br Med J 2002; 325:919.10.1136/bmj.325.7370.919Suche in Google Scholar

20. Dyer O. Shipman murdered more than 200 patients, inquiry finds. Br Med J 2002; 325:181.10.1136/bmj.325.7357.181/aSuche in Google Scholar

21. Holden J, O'Donnell S. The Shipman Inquiry. Br J Gen Pract 2004; 54:389.Suche in Google Scholar

22. Holden J, O'Donnell S. Shipman proposals will alter general practice profoundly. Br Med J 203; 326:280.10.1136/bmj.326.7383.280Suche in Google Scholar

23. Horton R. The real lessons from Harold Frederick Shipman. Lancet 2001; 357:82–3.10.1016/S0140-6736(00)03532-7Suche in Google Scholar

24. Michell AR. The Shipman reports: lessons and warnings. Vet Rec 2005; 156:153.Suche in Google Scholar

25. Mohammed MA, Cheng KK, Rouse A, Marshall T. Bristol, Shipman, and clinical governance: Shewhart's forgotten lessons. Lancet 2001; 357:463–7.10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04019-8Suche in Google Scholar

26. Murphy JF. The Shipman Inquiry. Ir Med J 2002; 95:228.Suche in Google Scholar

27. Pollard JS. The Shipman case and its legacy. Med Leg J 2003; 71:47–60.10.1258/rsmmlj.71.2.47Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

28. Pollard T. Chilling lessons from the Shipman inquiry. Br J Community Nurs 2005; 10:108.10.12968/bjcn.2005.10.3.17611Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

29. Pounder DJ. The case of Dr. Shipman. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 2003; 24:219–26.10.1097/01.paf.0000070000.13428.a3Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

30. Swift C. The Shipman inquiry: a progress report. Med Sci Law 2003; 43:188–92.10.1258/rsmmsl.43.3.188Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

31. Wright V. The Shipman inquiry. Br J Perioper Nurs 2005; 15:102.Suche in Google Scholar

32. NHS Executive (South Thames). Review of cervical cancer screening services at Kent and Canterbury hospitals. London: NHS Executive, 1997.Suche in Google Scholar

33. Secretary of State for Health. The new NHS. London: Stationery Office, 1997.Suche in Google Scholar

34. Scally G, Donaldson LJ. The NHS's 50th anniversary. Clinical governance and the drive for quality improvement in the new NHS in England. Br Med J 1998; 317:61–5.10.1136/bmj.317.7150.61Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

35. Harman D, Martin G. Managers and medical audit. Health Serv Manage 1992; 87:27–9.Suche in Google Scholar

36. Irvine D. Managing for quality in general practice. London: King's Fund Centre, 1990.Suche in Google Scholar

37. Prestwich M, Holland CP. Quality − an IM&T infrastructure perspective. In: Fitzsimmons DA, Ellis NT, Gillies A, editors. ECHI Conference Proceedings, 1995:45–52.Suche in Google Scholar

38. Do H. The quality of medical care: report of the standing medical advisory committee. London: Stationery Office, 1990.Suche in Google Scholar

39. Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Q 1966; 44:166–203.10.2307/3348969Suche in Google Scholar

40. Crosby PB. Let's talk quality. New York: McGraw Hill, 1992.Suche in Google Scholar

41. Deming WE. Out of the crisis. Cambridge MA: MIT Center For Advanced Engineering, 1986.Suche in Google Scholar

42. Deming WE. Out of the crisis. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1992.Suche in Google Scholar

43. Maxwell R. Dimension of quality revisited: from thought to action. Quality in Health Care 1992; 1:171–7.10.1136/qshc.1.3.171Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

44. Maxwell RS. Quality assessment in health. Br Med J 1984; 288:1470–2.10.1136/bmj.288.6428.1470Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

45. Øvretheit J. Therapy Services Reading: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1992.Suche in Google Scholar

46. JCAHO. Quality assurance in managed health care organizations. Chicago: JCAHO, 1989.Suche in Google Scholar

47. WHO Working Group. The principles of quality assurance. Qual Assur Health Care1985;1:79–95.10.1093/intqhc/1.2-3.79Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

48. Donabedian A. Institutional and professional responsibilities in quality assurance. Qual Assur Health Care 1989; 1:3–11.10.1093/intqhc/1.1.3Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

49. netCARE. Capital Health. www.capitalhealth.ca.Suche in Google Scholar

50. Edwards G, Compton P, Malor R, Srinivasan A, Lazarus L. PEIRS: a pathologist-maintained expert system for the interpretation of chemical pathology reports. Pathology 1993; 25:27–34.10.3109/00313029309068898Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

51. Shaw N. Computerization and going paperless in Canadian primary care. Abingdon: Radcliffe Publishing, 2004.Suche in Google Scholar

52. Shaw N. Going paperless; a guide to computerisation in primary care. Abingdon: Radcliffe Medical Press, 2001.Suche in Google Scholar

53. Diabetic Drug Store. What is HbA1c? www.diabeticdurgstore.com.Suche in Google Scholar

54. BC Medical Association. Diabetes Care. www.bcma.org.Suche in Google Scholar

55. Cook TW. Circumscribed vs. diffused: the right approach to EHR deployment [personal communication], 2005.Suche in Google Scholar

56. Han Y, Carcillo JA, Venkataraman ST, Clark RS, Watson RS, Nguyen TC, et al. Unexpected increased mortality after implementation of a commercially sold computerized physician order entry system. Pediatrics 2005; 116:1506–12.10.1542/peds.2005-1287Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

57. Ammenwerth E, Shaw N. Bad health informatics can kill − is evaluation the answer? Methods Inf Med 2005; 44:1–3.10.1055/s-0038-1633915Suche in Google Scholar