David Wong1, Timothy Bonnici2, Julia Knight2, Stephen Gerry3, James Turton4, Peter Watkinson2. 1. Yorkshire Centre for Health Informatics, Leeds Institute of Data Analytics, Worsley Building, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. 2. Kadoorie Centre for Critical Care Research and Education, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK. 3. Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 4. Brasenose College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate time differences in recording observations and an early warning score using traditional paper charts and a novel e-Obs system in clinical practice. METHODS: Researchers observed the process of recording observations and early warning scores across 3 wards in 2 university teaching hospitals immediately before and after introduction of the e-Obs system. The process of recording observations included both measurement and documentation of vital signs. Interruptions were timed and subtracted from the measured process duration. Multilevel modeling was used to compensate for potential confounding factors. RESULTS: In all, 577 nurse events were observed (281 paper, 296 e-Obs). The geometric mean time to take a complete set of vital signs was 215 s (95% confidence interval [CI], 177 s-262 s) on paper, and 150 s (95% CI, 130 s-172 s) electronically. The treatment effect ratio was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.57-0.85, P < .001). The treatment effect ratio in ward 1 was 0.37 (95% CI, 0.26-0.53), in ward 2 was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.70-1.38), and in ward 3 was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.66-1.33). DISCUSSION: Introduction of an e-Obs system was associated with a statistically significant reduction in overall time to measure and document vital signs electronically compared to paper documentation. The reductions in time varied among wards and were of clinical significance on only 1 of 3 wards studied. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that introduction of an e-Obs system could lower nursing workload as well as increase documentation quality.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate time differences in recording observations and an early warning score using traditional paper charts and a novel e-Obs system in clinical practice. METHODS: Researchers observed the process of recording observations and early warning scores across 3 wards in 2 university teaching hospitals immediately before and after introduction of the e-Obs system. The process of recording observations included both measurement and documentation of vital signs. Interruptions were timed and subtracted from the measured process duration. Multilevel modeling was used to compensate for potential confounding factors. RESULTS: In all, 577 nurse events were observed (281 paper, 296 e-Obs). The geometric mean time to take a complete set of vital signs was 215 s (95% confidence interval [CI], 177 s-262 s) on paper, and 150 s (95% CI, 130 s-172 s) electronically. The treatment effect ratio was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.57-0.85, P < .001). The treatment effect ratio in ward 1 was 0.37 (95% CI, 0.26-0.53), in ward 2 was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.70-1.38), and in ward 3 was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.66-1.33). DISCUSSION: Introduction of an e-Obs system was associated with a statistically significant reduction in overall time to measure and document vital signs electronically compared to paper documentation. The reductions in time varied among wards and were of clinical significance on only 1 of 3 wards studied. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that introduction of an e-Obs system could lower nursing workload as well as increase documentation quality.
Authors: Melanie S Yeung; Stephen E Lapinsky; John T Granton; Diane M Doran; Joseph A Cafazzo Journal: J Clin Nurs Date: 2012-01-14 Impact factor: 3.036
Authors: Eric G Poon; Carol A Keohane; Catherine S Yoon; Matthew Ditmore; Anne Bane; Osnat Levtzion-Korach; Thomas Moniz; Jeffrey M Rothschild; Allen B Kachalia; Judy Hayes; William W Churchill; Stuart Lipsitz; Anthony D Whittemore; David W Bates; Tejal K Gandhi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-05-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michelle A Cretikos; Rinaldo Bellomo; Ken Hillman; Jack Chen; Simon Finfer; Arthas Flabouris Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2008-06-02 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: Sarah J Wilson; David Wong; David Clifton; Susannah Fleming; Rob Way; Richard Pullinger; Lionel Tarassenko Journal: Emerg Med J Date: 2012-03-22 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Laurie D Wolf; Patricia Potter; Jennifer A Sledge; Stuart B Boxerman; Deborah Grayson; Bradley Evanoff Journal: Hum Factors Date: 2006 Impact factor: 2.888
Authors: Sarah Collins; Brittany Couture; Min Jeoung Kang; Patricia Dykes; Kumiko Schnock; Chris Knaplund; Frank Chang; Kenrick Cato Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2018-12-05
Authors: Sara L Nottingham; Tricia M Kasamatsu; Lindsey E Eberman; Elizabeth R Neil; Cailee E Welch Bacon Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Shefali Oza; Darius Jazayeri; Jonathan M Teich; Ellen Ball; Patricia Alexandra Nankubuge; Job Rwebembera; Kevin Wing; Alieu Amara Sesay; Andrew S Kanter; Glauber D Ramos; David Walton; Rachael Cummings; Francesco Checchi; Hamish S Fraser Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-08-21 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Alexandra Lang; Mark Simmonds; James Pinchin; Sarah Sharples; Lorrayne Dunn; Susan Clarke; Owen Bennett; Sally Wood; Caron Swinscoe Journal: JMIR Med Inform Date: 2019-03-06
Authors: Michelle Helena Van Velthoven; Felicia Adjei; Dimitris Vavoulis; Glenn Wells; David Brindley; Attila Kardos Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-09-20 Impact factor: 2.692