-
Views
-
Cite
Cite
Elizabeth Shephard, Sally Stapley, William Hamilton, The use of electronic databases in primary care research, Family Practice, Volume 28, Issue 4, August 2011, Pages 352–354, https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmr039
Close - Share Icon Share
Extract
In the previous issue, Stuardi et al.1 described the potential advantages and problems with using primary care databases to identify possible trial participants. This is yet another example of the richness of material stored in primary care records, and how it can be tapped into for use in research. We address the use of electronic databases for research here.
The electronic recording of clinical patient data has come a long way since its inception during the 1980s. What started out as one UK-based database of patient-related diagnoses, prescriptions and demographic information has rapidly expanded into multiple national systems. In the UK alone, there are three predominant systems used both for research and for clinical records: the General Practice Research Database (GPRD), the Health Improvement Network (THIN) and QResearch. For all three systems, the information relating to symptoms, diseases, consultations and other clinical events are categorized using the Read code system. This structures its clinical data on the ICD-9-CM (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition, Clinical Modification); Read codes are however rarely used outside the UK. Mainland European multi-practice databases also exist, as does a US-based Veterans’ healthcare system (US Department of Veterans’ Affairs—VA). They contain coded material using the more popular International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) coding system. Less research has originated from these databases.
