OBJECTIVE: Electronic medical records (EMR) may increase the safety and efficiency of healthcare. Anesthesia care is a significant component of the perioperative period, yet little is known about the adoption of anesthesia information management systems (AIMS) by US anesthesiologists, particularly in non-academic settings. Herein, we report the results of a survey of US anesthesiologists regarding adoption of AIMS and anesthesiologist-perceived advantages and barriers to AIMS adoption. METHODS: Using the e-mail database of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, we solicited randomly selected US anesthesiologists to participate in a survey of their AIMS adoption, perceived advantages and barriers to AIMS. Two and then 3 weeks after the initial mailing, a follow-up e-mail was sent to each anesthesiologist. The study was closed 4 weeks after the initial mailing. RESULTS: Five thousand anesthesiologists were solicited; 615 (12.3%) responses were received. Twenty-four percent of respondents had installed an AIMS, while 13% were either installing a system now or had selected one, and an additional 13% were actively searching. Larger anesthesiology groups with large case loads, urban settings, and government affiliated or academic institutions were more likely to have adopted AIMS. Initial cost was the most frequently cited AIMS barrier. The most commonly cited benefit was more accurate clinical documentation (79%), while unanticipated need for ongoing information technology support (49%) and difficult integration of AIMS with an existing EMR (61%) were the most commonly cited problems. There were no barriers cited significantly more often by non-adopters than adopters. CONCLUSIONS: At least 50% of our survey respondents were currently using, installing, planning to install, or searching for an AIMS. However, the strength of any conclusion is undermined by a low survey response rate and potential bias as respondents using or searching for an AIMS may be more likely to participate. Nonetheless, challenges exist for anesthesiologists considering AIMS adoption including cost. Furthermore, important questions remain regarding payment for anesthesia services and the relationship of AIMS and "meaningful use" as defined by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
OBJECTIVE: Electronic medical records (EMR) may increase the safety and efficiency of healthcare. Anesthesia care is a significant component of the perioperative period, yet little is known about the adoption of anesthesia information management systems (AIMS) by US anesthesiologists, particularly in non-academic settings. Herein, we report the results of a survey of US anesthesiologists regarding adoption of AIMS and anesthesiologist-perceived advantages and barriers to AIMS adoption. METHODS: Using the e-mail database of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, we solicited randomly selected US anesthesiologists to participate in a survey of their AIMS adoption, perceived advantages and barriers to AIMS. Two and then 3 weeks after the initial mailing, a follow-up e-mail was sent to each anesthesiologist. The study was closed 4 weeks after the initial mailing. RESULTS: Five thousand anesthesiologists were solicited; 615 (12.3%) responses were received. Twenty-four percent of respondents had installed an AIMS, while 13% were either installing a system now or had selected one, and an additional 13% were actively searching. Larger anesthesiology groups with large case loads, urban settings, and government affiliated or academic institutions were more likely to have adopted AIMS. Initial cost was the most frequently cited AIMS barrier. The most commonly cited benefit was more accurate clinical documentation (79%), while unanticipated need for ongoing information technology support (49%) and difficult integration of AIMS with an existing EMR (61%) were the most commonly cited problems. There were no barriers cited significantly more often by non-adopters than adopters. CONCLUSIONS: At least 50% of our survey respondents were currently using, installing, planning to install, or searching for an AIMS. However, the strength of any conclusion is undermined by a low survey response rate and potential bias as respondents using or searching for an AIMS may be more likely to participate. Nonetheless, challenges exist for anesthesiologists considering AIMS adoption including cost. Furthermore, important questions remain regarding payment for anesthesia services and the relationship of AIMS and "meaningful use" as defined by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Authors: Stephen F Spring; Warren S Sandberg; Shaji Anupama; John L Walsh; William D Driscoll; Douglas E Raines Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Sachin Kheterpal; Ruchika Gupta; James M Blum; Kevin K Tremper; Michael O'Reilly; Paul E Kazanjian Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Ashish K Jha; Catherine M DesRoches; Eric G Campbell; Karen Donelan; Sowmya R Rao; Timothy G Ferris; Alexandra Shields; Sara Rosenbaum; David Blumenthal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-03-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Stanley Muravchick; James E Caldwell; Richard H Epstein; Maria Galati; Warren J Levy; Michael O'Reilly; Jeffrey S Plagenhoef; Mohamed Rehman; David L Reich; Michael M Vigoda Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Christoph B Egger Halbeis; Richard H Epstein; Alex Macario; Ronald G Pearl; Zvi Grunwald Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Anil A Marian; Emine O Bayman; Anita Gillett; Brent Hadder; Michael M Todd Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2016-03-02 Impact factor: 2.796