OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of computer-generated reminders on nurse charting deficiencies in two intensive care units. DESIGN: Nurses caring for a group of 60 study patients received patient-specific paper reminder reports when charting deficiencies were found at mid-day. Nurses caring for a group of 60 control patients received no reminders. A group of 60 retrospective patients was also formed. MEASUREMENTS: The average numbers of charting deficiencies at the end of the shift in each of the three groups were compared using two planned orthogonal contrasts. RESULTS: The average in the study group patients was 1.02 deficiencies per day per patient, whereas the control group the average was 1.40 deficiencies per day per patient (p = 0.001). The average number of end-of-shift deficiencies in the pooled prospective (study/control) population was 1.21 deficiencies per day per patient, compared with the average in the retrospective group of 1.56 deficiencies per day per patient (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The decrease was likely due both to the appropriate response of the nurses to the reminders and to a learned attentiveness to the tasks on the part of the nurses who cared for study patients. Greater gains were hindered by incomplete "coupling" of the reminders to the end-of-shift deficiencies and by inaccuracies in the reminders.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of computer-generated reminders on nurse charting deficiencies in two intensive care units. DESIGN: Nurses caring for a group of 60 study patients received patient-specific paper reminder reports when charting deficiencies were found at mid-day. Nurses caring for a group of 60 control patients received no reminders. A group of 60 retrospective patients was also formed. MEASUREMENTS: The average numbers of charting deficiencies at the end of the shift in each of the three groups were compared using two planned orthogonal contrasts. RESULTS: The average in the study group patients was 1.02 deficiencies per day per patient, whereas the control group the average was 1.40 deficiencies per day per patient (p = 0.001). The average number of end-of-shift deficiencies in the pooled prospective (study/control) population was 1.21 deficiencies per day per patient, compared with the average in the retrospective group of 1.56 deficiencies per day per patient (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The decrease was likely due both to the appropriate response of the nurses to the reminders and to a learned attentiveness to the tasks on the part of the nurses who cared for study patients. Greater gains were hindered by incomplete "coupling" of the reminders to the end-of-shift deficiencies and by inaccuracies in the reminders.
Authors: Judith Jacobi; Gilles L Fraser; Douglas B Coursin; Richard R Riker; Dorrie Fontaine; Eric T Wittbrodt; Donald B Chalfin; Michael F Masica; H Scott Bjerke; William M Coplin; David W Crippen; Barry D Fuchs; Ruth M Kelleher; Paul E Marik; Stanley A Nasraway; Michael J Murray; William T Peruzzi; Philip D Lumb Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Anthony D Harris; Jessina C McGregor; Eli N Perencevich; Jon P Furuno; Jingkun Zhu; Dan E Peterson; Joseph Finkelstein Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2005-10-12 Impact factor: 4.497