Centre for Healthcare Transformation, Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation (AusHSI), Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane 4059, Australia
Prof. Kirsten Vallmuur
Centre for Healthcare Transformation, Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation (AusHSI), Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane 4059, Australia
With the increasing diversity of students attending university, there is a growing interest in the factors predicting academic performance. This study is a prospective investigation of the academic, psychosocial, cognitive, and demographic predictors of academic performance of first year Australian university students. Questionnaires were distributed to 197 first year students 4 to 8 weeks prior to the end of semester exams and overall grade point averages were collected at semester completion. Previous academic performance was identified as the most significant predictor of university performance. \ud \ud Integration into university, self efficacy, and employment responsibilities were also predictive of university grades. Identifying the factors that influence academic performance can improve the targeting of interventions and support services for students at risk of academic problems
The aim of this study was to systematically review the published evidence of the impact of health information technology (HIT) or health information systems (HIS) on the quality of healthcare, focusing on clinicians' adherence to evidence-based guidelines and the corresponding impact this had on patient clinical outcomes. The review covered the use of health information technologies and systems in both medical care (i.e. clinical and surgical) and other areas such as allied health and preventive services. Studies were included in the review if they examined the impact of Electronic Health Record (EHR), Computerised Provider Order-Entry (CPOE), or Decision Support System (DS); and if the primary outcomes of the studies were focused on the level of compliance with evidence-based guidelines among clinicians. Measurements considered relevant to the review were either of changes in clinical processes resulting from a change of the providers' behaviour, or of specific patient outcomes that demonstrated the effectiveness of a particular treatment given by providers. Of 23 studies included in the current review, 17 assessed the impact of HIT/HIS on health care practitioners' performance. A positive improvement, in relation to their compliance with evidence-based guidelines, was seen in 14 studies. Studies that included an assessment of patient outcomes, however, showed insufficient evidence of either clinically or statistically important improvements. Although the number of studies reviewed was relatively small, the findings demonstrated consistency with similar previous reviews of this nature in that wide scale use of HIT has been shown to increase clinician's adherence to guidelines.
Objective: To appraise the published evidence regarding the accuracy of external cause-of-injury codes in hospital records. Design: Systematic review. Data sources: Electronic databases searched included PubMed, PubMed Central, Medline, CINAHL, Academic Search Elite, Proquest Health and Medical Complete, and Google Scholar. Snowballing strategies were used by searching the bibliographies of retrieved references to identify relevant associated articles. Selection criteria: Studies were included in the review if they assessed the accuracy of external cause-of-injury coding in hospital records via a recoding methodology. Methods: The papers identified through the search were independently screened by two authors for inclusion. Because of heterogeneity between studies, meta-analysis was not performed. Results: Very limited research on the accuracy of external cause coding for injury-related hospitalisation using medical record review and recoding methodologies has been conducted, with only five studies matching the selection criteria. The accuracy of external cause coding using ICD-9-CM ranged from ∼ 64% when exact code agreement was examined to ∼85% when agreement for broader groups of codes was examined. Conclusions: Although broad external cause groupings coded in ICD-9-CM can be used with some confidence, researchers should exercise caution for very specific codes until further research is conducted to validate these data. As all previous studies have been conducted using ICD-9-CM, research is needed to quantify the accuracy of coding using ICD-10-AM, and validate the use of these data for injury surveillance purposes.