Executive Council lists and general practitioner files
AUTOR(ES)
Farmer, R. D. T.
RESUMO
An investigation of the accuracy of general practitioner and Executive Council files was approached by a comparison of the two. High error rates were found, including both file errors and record errors. On analysis it emerged that file error rates could not be satisfactorily expressed except in a time-dimensioned way, and we were unable to do this within the context of our study. Record error rates and field error rates were expressible as proportions of the number of records on both the lists; 79·2% of all records exhibited non-congruencies and particular information fields had error rates ranging from 0·8% (assignation of sex) to 68·6% (assignation of civil state). Many of the errors, both field errors and record errors, were attributable to delayed updating of mutable information.
