Eliot Grigg1, Andrew Palmer1, Jeffrey Grigg2, Peter Oppenheimer3, Tim Wu4, Axel Roesler5, Bala Nair1, Brian Ross1. 1. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. 2. Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 3. Department of Surgery and the Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Institute for Simulation and Interprofessional Studies, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. 4. Department of Medical Education and Biomedical Informatics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. 5. Division of Design, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of an electronic system created at the University of Washington to accurately document prerecorded VF and pulseless electrical activity (PEA) cardiac arrest scenarios compared with the American Heart Association paper cardiac arrest record. METHODS:16 anaesthesiology residents were randomly assigned to view one of two prerecorded, simulated VF and PEA scenarios and asked to document the event with either the paper or electronic system. Each subject then repeated the process with the other video and documentation method. Five types of documentation errors were defined: (1) omission, (2) specification, (3) timing, (4) commission and (5) noise. The mean difference in errors between the paper and electronic methods was analysed using a single factor repeated measures ANOVA model. RESULTS: Compared with paper records, the electronic system omitted 6.3 fewer events (95% CI -10.1 to -2.5, p=0.003), which represents a 28% reduction in omission errors. Users recorded 2.9 fewer noise items (95% CI -5.3 to -0.6, p=0.003) when compared with paper, representing a 36% decrease in redundant or irrelevant information. The rate of timing (Δ=-3.2, 95% CI -9.3 to 3.0, p=0.286) and commission (Δ=-4.4, 95% CI -9.4 to 0.5, p=0.075) errors were similar between the electronic system and paper, while the rate of specification errors were about a third lower for the electronic system when compared with the paper record (Δ=-3.2, 95% CI -6.3 to -0.2, p=0.037). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with paper documentation, documentation with the electronic system captured 24% more critical information during a simulated medical emergency without loss in data quality. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of an electronic system created at the University of Washington to accurately document prerecorded VF and pulseless electrical activity (PEA) cardiac arrest scenarios compared with the American Heart Association paper cardiac arrest record. METHODS: 16 anaesthesiology residents were randomly assigned to view one of two prerecorded, simulated VF and PEA scenarios and asked to document the event with either the paper or electronic system. Each subject then repeated the process with the other video and documentation method. Five types of documentation errors were defined: (1) omission, (2) specification, (3) timing, (4) commission and (5) noise. The mean difference in errors between the paper and electronic methods was analysed using a single factor repeated measures ANOVA model. RESULTS: Compared with paper records, the electronic system omitted 6.3 fewer events (95% CI -10.1 to -2.5, p=0.003), which represents a 28% reduction in omission errors. Users recorded 2.9 fewer noise items (95% CI -5.3 to -0.6, p=0.003) when compared with paper, representing a 36% decrease in redundant or irrelevant information. The rate of timing (Δ=-3.2, 95% CI -9.3 to 3.0, p=0.286) and commission (Δ=-4.4, 95% CI -9.4 to 0.5, p=0.075) errors were similar between the electronic system and paper, while the rate of specification errors were about a third lower for the electronic system when compared with the paper record (Δ=-3.2, 95% CI -6.3 to -0.2, p=0.037). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with paper documentation, documentation with the electronic system captured 24% more critical information during a simulated medical emergency without loss in data quality. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cardiac Arrest; Cardiac Care, Care Systems; Communications; Data Management; Resuscitation
Authors: Thaciana Dos Santos Alcântara; Fernando Castro de Araújo Neto; Helena Ferreira Lima; Dyego Carlos S Anacleto de Araújo; Júlia Mirão Sanchez; Giulyane Targino Aires-Moreno; Carina de Carvalho Silvestre; Divaldo P de Lyra Junior Journal: Int J Clin Pharm Date: 2020-11-11
Authors: Stephanie Witzman; Shavonne L Massey; Sudha Kessler; Ernesto Gonzalez-Giraldo; Sara E Fridinger; Lila Worden; Naomi Lewin; Dennis Dlugos; Susan Melamed; Mark Fitzgerald; France W Fung; Marissa Ferruzi; Nicole McNamee; Denise LaFalce; Maureen Donnelly; Amber Haywood; Linda Allen-Napoli; Brenda Banwell; Nicholas S Abend Journal: J Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 2.590
Authors: T Grundgeiger; M Albert; D Reinhardt; O Happel; A Steinisch; T Wurmb Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2016-04-16 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Elizabeth A Hunt; Jordan M Duval-Arnould; Melania M Bembea; Tia Raymond; Aaron Calhoun; Dianne L Atkins; Robert A Berg; Vinay M Nadkarni; Michael Donnino; Lars W Andersen Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2018-09-07
Authors: Michael S Dittmar; Sabrina Zimmermann; Marcus Creutzenberg; Sylvia Bele; Diane Bitzinger; Dirk Lunz; Bernhard M Graf; Martin Kieninger Journal: BMC Emerg Med Date: 2021-06-10