Data collection is poor because staff don't see the point
BMJ 2004; 328 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7443.786-d (Published 01 April 2004) Cite this as: BMJ 2004;328:786
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Valid data good. Valid data used to define future policy good.
Manipulated /
polished data used to justify or gloss over the status quo bad.
The sector that probably understands better, digests more often and
analyses
to a higher level statistics and data is the medical profession. We don't
work
in a vacuum and we continuously seek evidence to show that our efforts
have
merit.
What we need is medical agenda data and outcome analysis, not
administrative data gathering which is akin to counting blades of grass
for
the purpose of trying to calculate how many more blades we will cut this
week compared to last.
Is there really some fool out there suggesting that data gathering is
an
appropriate task for front line medical staff. It is a waste of expensive
medical
time and this time will become scarce with the EWTD first phase this
august.
By all means collect the data, digest and plan from it but may he/she
who
wants the data get out of their office and collect it themselves. Leave
the
doctors to doctoring and the nurses to nursing and get the administrators
out
administrating.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
There is hope for the NHS; frontline staff still possess enough
freedom to treat patients rather than collect statistics.
The Audit Commission is wrong; NHS staff understand only too clearly
the benefits of data collection; that data is manipulated to support dodgy
politics and assist managers get a better job next time.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
A House Built On Sand.
The hierarchy of information, knowledge and wisdom is dependent on
the rock solid foundation that is accurate data.
Anyone who has attempted to maintain a clinical database where
colleagues or subordinates are requested to "fill out the forms" will know
the frustration of this approach. The data collectors must see a personal
return for their efforts. Alternatively, the data collection should occur
in the background, such as in a well designed and implemented electronic
health record system. Furthermore the quantity of data collected is in my
experience, inversely proportional to its quality. Datasets should be as
minimised as possible.
All clinicians will have had the experience of administrators
interpreting inaccurate data poorly. We cannot ignore our role in clinical
data collection, neither should we be mandated to be unwilling, resentful
and therefore inaccurate tickers of boxes. Data collection requires
resources, be that a unit data manager, or a palm held computer for each
of the junior staff. It also requires cooperation and communication.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests