Responses

This article has a correction. Please see:

PDF

Relationship between quality of care and choice of clinical computing system: retrospective analysis of family practice performance under the UK's quality and outcomes framework
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Re:Data from HSCIC: if the article needed correction of the underlying data, should the authors review the conclusions reached?

    We appreciate the interest in the paper and the further criticisms.

    In the London SHA there were 1,504 practices in 2010/11, not 463 (plus we never reported such a number). 24 of these were using SystmOne, giving it a market share of approximately 1.6%.

    We can't find evidence of the data corruption you suggest. As explained before, the correction related to a table label and was purely of a descriptive...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Data from HSCIC: if the article needed correction of the underlying data, should the authors review the conclusions reached?

    I have now received the tables provided to Manchester University by HSCIC listing GP practice systems by SHA and PCT dated April 2011 and market share dated May 2013.

    In the practice GP practice table, there are 463 practices listed in London SHA.

    Of these 10 are listed as using TPP SystmOne - 8 in Hounslow and 2 in Hillingdon.

    This suggests that the data in the table regarding system distrib...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Re:Further concerns on methods, results and conclusions

    We thank Professor Hippisley-Cox and Dr O'Hanlon for their feedback on our BMJ Open paper (3, e003190). We address each point raised below:

    1.The authors have undertaken a cross-sectional study - this is weakest study design and the results of such studies can only ever signal associations rather than attribute causality. Limited information is provided on the 'adjustments' made in the analyses meaning the reade...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Further concerns on methods, results and conclusions
    • Julia Hippisley-Cox, Professor of General practice & Clinical Epidemiology
    • Other Contributors:
      • Dr Shaun O'Hanlon, Clinical Director EMIS

    Dear Trish

    I'm afraid we also have many concerns regarding this paper in addition to those already raised by Mary Hawking.

    1. The authors have undertaken a cross-sectional study - this is weakest study design and the results of such studies can only ever signal associations rather than attribute causality. Limited information is provided on the 'adjustments' made in the analyses meaning the reader...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Re:So many concerns, where to begin?

    Dear Mary

    Thank you for your diligent reading and useful comments. To answer the points you raise:

    1) The issue with table 3 has already been identified. Basically the labels for the SHA are wrong. Apologies for this.

    2) In the database from the HSCIC SystmOne was labelled as appears on the paper, ProdSysOneX. Embarrassingly, I did not query the name

    The BMJ has already been notified a...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    So many concerns, where to begin?

    There would appear to be a number of inaccuracies in this article which I am very much afraid make the conclusions hard to sustain - and I would urge anyone thinking of using this article to guide their choice of GP IT system at any level to think again!

    Just a few points:- The description of GP computing is wrong: GP systems became 50% reimbursable in 1990 - not 1998 - and the reason was to bring them under DH...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.