Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

Published in Association with the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)

Editor-in-Chief: Plebani, Mario

Ed. by Gillery, Philippe / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Payne, Deborah A. / Schlattmann, Peter / Tate, Jillian R.

12 Issues per year

IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 3.432

CiteScore 2016: 2.21

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 1.000
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 1.112

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 44, Issue 6 (Jun 2006)


Clinical Governance and Laboratory Medicine: is the Electronic Medical Record our best friend or sworn enemy?

Nicola T. Shaw
Published Online: 2006-05-29 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2006.124


This review attempts to address the question: is the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) our best friend or sworn enemy in the context of Clinical Governance and Laboratory Medicine? It provides a brief overview of the history and development of Clinical Governance before going on to define an EMR. It considers how EMRs could assist in delivering quality care in laboratory medicine. A number of outstanding issues regarding EMRs and electronic health records (EHRs) are identified and discussed briefly before the author provides a brief outlook on the future of clinical governance and EMRs in laboratory medicine.

Keywords: Clinical Governance; Electronic Health Record; Electronic Medical Record


  • 1.

    Crombie IK, Davies HT, Abraham SC, Du Florey C. The audit handbook: improving healthcare through clinical audit. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1994.Google Scholar

  • 2.

    Smith CW. Florence nightingale. London: Constable, 1950.Google Scholar

  • 3.

    Devlin HB. Audit and the quality of clinical care: a conceptual exploration. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1990; 2:3–14.Google Scholar

  • 4.

    Fielding LP, Stewart-Brown S, Blesovsky L, Kearney G. Anastomic integrity after operations for large bowel cancer: a muticentre study. Br Med J 1980; 281:411–4.Google Scholar

  • 5.

    Williamson JD. Quality control, medical audit and the General Practitioner. J R Coll Gen Pract 1973; 23:697–706.Google Scholar

  • 6.

    Department of Health. Working for patients. London: Stationery Office, 1989.Google Scholar

  • 7.

    Alder Hey. Full extent of organ horror revealed. Nurs Times2001;97:5.Google Scholar

  • 8.

    Bauchner H, Vinci R. What have we learnt from the Alder Hey affair? That monitoring physicians' performance is necessary to ensure good practice. Br Med J 2001; 322:309–10.Google Scholar

  • 9.

    Burton JL, Wells M. The Alder Hey affair. Arch Dis Child 202; 86:4–7.Google Scholar

  • 10.

    Burton JL, Wells M. The Alder Hey affair: implications for pathology practice. J Clin Pathol 2001; 54:820–3.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 11.

    Dewar S, Boddington P. Returning to the Alder Hey report and its reporting: addressing confusions and improving inquiries. J Med Ethics 2004; 30:463–9.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 12.

    Glasper EA, Powell C. Lessons of Alder Hey: consent must be informed. Br J Nurs 2001; 10:213.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 13.

    Hunter M. Alder Hey report condemns doctors, management, and coroner. Br Med J 2001; 322:255.Google Scholar

  • 14.

    Mason K, Laurie G. Consent or property? Dealing with the body and its parts in the shadow of Bristol and Alder Hey. Mod Law Rev 2001; 64:710–29.Google Scholar

  • 15.

    Baker R. Placing principle before expediency: the Shipman inquiry. Lancet 2005; 365:919–2.Google Scholar

  • 16.

    Baker R. Implications of Harold Shipman for general practice. Postgrad Med J 2004; 80:303–6; discussion 307–8.Google Scholar

  • 17.

    Dimond B. Dr. Shipman: how could it have been prevented? Br J Nurs 2000; 9:129.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 18.

    Dyer C. Shipman inquiry recommends tighter rules on controlled drugs. Br Med J 2004; 329:188.Google Scholar

  • 19.

    Dyer C. Shipman inquiry calls for major changes in death certification. Br Med J 2002; 325:919.Google Scholar

  • 20.

    Dyer O. Shipman murdered more than 200 patients, inquiry finds. Br Med J 2002; 325:181.Google Scholar

  • 21.

    Holden J, O'Donnell S. The Shipman Inquiry. Br J Gen Pract 2004; 54:389.Google Scholar

  • 22.

    Holden J, O'Donnell S. Shipman proposals will alter general practice profoundly. Br Med J 203; 326:280.Google Scholar

  • 23.

    Horton R. The real lessons from Harold Frederick Shipman. Lancet 2001; 357:82–3.Google Scholar

  • 24.

    Michell AR. The Shipman reports: lessons and warnings. Vet Rec 2005; 156:153.Google Scholar

  • 25.

    Mohammed MA, Cheng KK, Rouse A, Marshall T. Bristol, Shipman, and clinical governance: Shewhart's forgotten lessons. Lancet 2001; 357:463–7.Google Scholar

  • 26.

    Murphy JF. The Shipman Inquiry. Ir Med J 2002; 95:228.Google Scholar

  • 27.

    Pollard JS. The Shipman case and its legacy. Med Leg J 2003; 71:47–60.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 28.

    Pollard T. Chilling lessons from the Shipman inquiry. Br J Community Nurs 2005; 10:108.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 29.

    Pounder DJ. The case of Dr. Shipman. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 2003; 24:219–26.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 30.

    Swift C. The Shipman inquiry: a progress report. Med Sci Law 2003; 43:188–92.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 31.

    Wright V. The Shipman inquiry. Br J Perioper Nurs 2005; 15:102.Google Scholar

  • 32.

    NHS Executive (South Thames). Review of cervical cancer screening services at Kent and Canterbury hospitals. London: NHS Executive, 1997.Google Scholar

  • 33.

    Secretary of State for Health. The new NHS. London: Stationery Office, 1997.Google Scholar

  • 34.

    Scally G, Donaldson LJ. The NHS's 50th anniversary. Clinical governance and the drive for quality improvement in the new NHS in England. Br Med J 1998; 317:61–5.Google Scholar

  • 35.

    Harman D, Martin G. Managers and medical audit. Health Serv Manage 1992; 87:27–9.Google Scholar

  • 36.

    Irvine D. Managing for quality in general practice. London: King's Fund Centre, 1990.Google Scholar

  • 37.

    Prestwich M, Holland CP. Quality − an IM&T infrastructure perspective. In: Fitzsimmons DA, Ellis NT, Gillies A, editors. ECHI Conference Proceedings, 1995:45–52.Google Scholar

  • 38.

    Do H. The quality of medical care: report of the standing medical advisory committee. London: Stationery Office, 1990.Google Scholar

  • 39.

    Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Q 1966; 44:166–203.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 40.

    Crosby PB. Let's talk quality. New York: McGraw Hill, 1992.Google Scholar

  • 41.

    Deming WE. Out of the crisis. Cambridge MA: MIT Center For Advanced Engineering, 1986.Google Scholar

  • 42.

    Deming WE. Out of the crisis. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1992.Google Scholar

  • 43.

    Maxwell R. Dimension of quality revisited: from thought to action. Quality in Health Care 1992; 1:171–7.Google Scholar

  • 44.

    Maxwell RS. Quality assessment in health. Br Med J 1984; 288:1470–2.Google Scholar

  • 45.

    Øvretheit J. Therapy Services Reading: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1992.Google Scholar

  • 46.

    JCAHO. Quality assurance in managed health care organizations. Chicago: JCAHO, 1989.Google Scholar

  • 47.

    WHO Working Group. The principles of quality assurance. Qual Assur Health Care1985;1:79–95.Google Scholar

  • 48.

    Donabedian A. Institutional and professional responsibilities in quality assurance. Qual Assur Health Care 1989; 1:3–11.Google Scholar

  • 49.

    netCARE. Capital Health. www.capitalhealth.ca.Google Scholar

  • 50.

    Edwards G, Compton P, Malor R, Srinivasan A, Lazarus L. PEIRS: a pathologist-maintained expert system for the interpretation of chemical pathology reports. Pathology 1993; 25:27–34.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 51.

    Shaw N. Computerization and going paperless in Canadian primary care. Abingdon: Radcliffe Publishing, 2004.Google Scholar

  • 52.

    Shaw N. Going paperless; a guide to computerisation in primary care. Abingdon: Radcliffe Medical Press, 2001.Google Scholar

  • 53.

    Diabetic Drug Store. What is HbA1c? www.diabeticdurgstore.com.Google Scholar

  • 54.

    BC Medical Association. Diabetes Care. www.bcma.org.Google Scholar

  • 55.

    Cook TW. Circumscribed vs. diffused: the right approach to EHR deployment [personal communication], 2005.Google Scholar

  • 56.

    Han Y, Carcillo JA, Venkataraman ST, Clark RS, Watson RS, Nguyen TC, et al. Unexpected increased mortality after implementation of a commercially sold computerized physician order entry system. Pediatrics 2005; 116:1506–12.Google Scholar

  • 57.

    Ammenwerth E, Shaw N. Bad health informatics can kill − is evaluation the answer? Methods Inf Med 2005; 44:1–3.Google Scholar

About the article

Corresponding author: Dr. Nicola T. Shaw, PATH Research Group, iCARE, 3rd floor Environmental Engineering Building, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2T2, Canada Phone: +1-780-492-3185, Fax: +1-780-492-2471,

Published Online: 2006-05-29

Published in Print: 2006-06-01

Citation Information: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), ISSN (Online) 1437-4331, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2006.124.

Export Citation

©2006 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin New York. Copyright Clearance Center

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Nicola Shaw, Victoria Aceti, Denise Campbell‐Scherer, Marg Leyland, Victoria Mozgala, Lisa Patterson, Shanna Sunley, Donna Manca, and Eva Grunfeld
Clinical Governance: An International Journal, 2011, Volume 16, Number 4, Page 353

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in