OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the completeness of anesthesia recording before and after the introduction of an electronic anesthesia record. METHODS: The study was conducted in a Korean teaching hospital where the EMR was implemented in October 2008. One hundred paper anesthesia records from July to September 2008 and 150 electronic anesthesia records during the same period in 2009 were randomly sampled. Thirty-four essential items were selected out of all the anesthesia items and grouped into automatically transferred items and manual entry items. 1, .5 and 0 points were given for each item of complete entry, incomplete entry and no entry respectively. The completeness of documentation was defined as the sum of the scores. The influencing factors on the completeness of documentation were evaluated in total and by the groups. RESULTS: The average completeness score of the electronic anesthesia records was 3.15% higher than that of the paper records. A multiple regression model showed the type of the anesthesia record was a significant factor on the completeness of anesthesia records in all items (β=.98, p<.05) and automatically transferred items (β=.56, p<.01). The type of the anesthesia records had no influence on the completeness in manual entry items. CONCLUSIONS: The completeness of an anesthesia record was improved after the implementation of the electronic anesthesia record. The reuse of the data from the EMR was the main contributor to the improved completeness.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the completeness of anesthesia recording before and after the introduction of an electronic anesthesia record. METHODS: The study was conducted in a Korean teaching hospital where the EMR was implemented in October 2008. One hundred paper anesthesia records from July to September 2008 and 150 electronic anesthesia records during the same period in 2009 were randomly sampled. Thirty-four essential items were selected out of all the anesthesia items and grouped into automatically transferred items and manual entry items. 1, .5 and 0 points were given for each item of complete entry, incomplete entry and no entry respectively. The completeness of documentation was defined as the sum of the scores. The influencing factors on the completeness of documentation were evaluated in total and by the groups. RESULTS: The average completeness score of the electronic anesthesia records was 3.15% higher than that of the paper records. A multiple regression model showed the type of the anesthesia record was a significant factor on the completeness of anesthesia records in all items (β=.98, p<.05) and automatically transferred items (β=.56, p<.01). The type of the anesthesia records had no influence on the completeness in manual entry items. CONCLUSIONS: The completeness of an anesthesia record was improved after the implementation of the electronic anesthesia record. The reuse of the data from the EMR was the main contributor to the improved completeness.
Authors: Hans-Jörg Gillmann; Sascha Wasilenko; Jonathan Züger; Antje Petersen; Anna Klemann; Andreas Leffler; Thomas Stueber Journal: Arch Med Sci Date: 2019-03-04 Impact factor: 3.318
Authors: Karen Tu; Jessica Widdifield; Jacqueline Young; William Oud; Noah M Ivers; Debra A Butt; Chad A Leaver; Liisa Jaakkimainen Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 2.796