http://hdl.handle.net/2328/3185 Tue, 21 May 2013 01:05:45 GMT 2013-05-21T01:05:45Z http://hdl.handle.net/2328/11858 Title: Promoting patient centred palliative care through case conferencing Authors: Williams, Helena; Shelby-James, Tania Maree; Currow, David Christopher; Phillips, Paddy Andrew; Abernethy, Amy Pickar Mon, 01 Jan 2007 00:00:00 GMT http://hdl.handle.net/2328/11858 2007-01-01T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/2328/11849 Title: Integration, Coordination and Multidisciplinary Care: What can These Approaches Offer to Australian Primary Health Care? Authors: Tieman, Jennifer; Mitchell, Geoffrey K; Shelby-James, Tania Maree; Currow, David Christopher; Fazekas, Belinda Susan; O'Doherty, L J; Hegarty, Margaret Mary; Erikssen, Lars; Brown, R; Reid-Orr, Desley Anne Mon, 01 Jan 2007 00:00:00 GMT http://hdl.handle.net/2328/11849 2007-01-01T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/2328/11796 Title: The Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Status (AKPS) scale: a revised scale for contemporary palliative care clinical practice [ISRCTN81117481] Authors: Woods, David A; Abernethy, Amy Pickar; Shelby-James, Tania Maree; Fazekas, Belinda Susan; Currow, David Christopher Sat, 01 Jan 2005 00:00:00 GMT http://hdl.handle.net/2328/11796 2005-01-01T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/2328/3188 Title: Handheld computers for data entry: high tech has its problems too Authors: Shelby-James, Tania Maree; Abernethy, Amy Pickar; McAlindon, Andrew; Currow, David Christopher Abstract: Background The use of handheld computers in medicine has increased in the last decade, they are now used in a variety of clinical settings. There is an underlying assumption that electronic data capture is more accurate that paper-based data methods have been rarely tested. This report documents a study to compare the accuracy of hand held computer data capture versus more traditional paper-based methods. Methods Clinical nurses involved in a randomised controlled trial collected patient information on a hand held computer in parallel with a paper-based data form. Both sets of data were entered into an access database and the hand held computer data compared to the paper-based data for discrepancies. Results Error rates from the handheld computers were 67.5 error per 1000 fields, compared to the accepted error rate of 10 per 10,000 field for paper-based double data entry. Error rates were highest in field containing a default value. Conclusion While popular with staff, unacceptable high error rates occurred with hand held computers. Training and ongoing monitoring are needed if hand held computers are to be used for clinical data collection. Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:00:00 GMT http://hdl.handle.net/2328/3188 2007-02-20T00:00:00Z