| Literature DB >> 29212480 |
Yanhong Qin1, Ranyun Zhou2, Qiong Wu2, Xiaodi Huang3, Xinli Chen1, Weiwei Wang1, Xun Wang1, Hua Xu1, Jing Zheng1, Siyu Qian4, Changqing Bai5, Ping Yu6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intensive care information systems (ICIS) are continuously evolving to meet the ever changing information needs of intensive care units (ICUs), providing the backbone for a safe, intelligent and efficient patient care environment. Although beneficial for the international advancement in building smart environments to transform ICU services, knowledge about the contemporary development of ICIS worldwide, their usage and impacts is limited. This study aimed to fill this knowledge gap by researching the development and implementation of an ICIS in a Chinese hospital, nurses' use of the system, and the impact of system use on critical care nursing processes and outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: Critical care; EHR; Electronic health records; Evaluation; ICU; Implementation; Information system; Intensive care; Nurse; Nursing documentation; Participatory design; User-centred design
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29212480 PMCID: PMC5719644 DOI: 10.1186/s12911-017-0569-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak ISSN: 1472-6947 Impact factor: 2.796
Demographic information of the registered nurses in the ICU in May 2016
| Age (Years) | No. of persons (%) |
|---|---|
| 20–25 | 7 (26%) |
| 26–30 | 17 (63%) |
| 30–40 | 3 (11%) |
| Sex | |
| Female | 23 |
| Male | 4 |
| Nursing education level | |
| 3-Year higher education diploma | 14 (52%) |
| 4-Year Bachelor | 13 (48%) |
| Nursing work experience | |
| < =3 years | 6 (22%) |
| 3–5 years | 15 (56%) |
| > 5 years | 6 (22%) |
Fig. 1System Outline
Fig. 2ICU Critical Nursing Care Chart
A comparison of documentation errors in paper vs electronic records
| Type of Records | Sample size | Data (n) | Data Item (n) | Calculation (n) | Legibility | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrong (%) | Right | Missing (%) | Right | Wrong (%) | Right | Corrected | No Change | ||
| Paper | 500 | 35 (7.5%) | 465 | 78 (18.5%) | 422 | 72 (16.8%) | 428 | 110 | 390 |
| Electronic | 450 | 7 (1.6%) | 443 | 16 (3.7%) | 434 | 12 (2.8%) | 434 | 0 | 450 |
| Chi square | 16.6 | 37.2 | 40.5 | 120.0 | |||||
|
| < 0.01 | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | |||||
A comparison of nursing documentation using paper vs electronic records
| Item | Using Paper | Using ICIS |
|---|---|---|
| Recording the monitoring data | Hand writing, taking about 30 min per shift | Automatic generation of tables and diagrams |
| Reading patient’s information | Inconvenient to find paper records | Easy to retrieve data in ICIS |
| Accuracy of data captured from the monitoring devices | Missing data despite best effort | 100% accurate |
| Storage of data | Paper records are easy to lose | Long-term storage in the database in the server |
| Data retrieval | Takes time and effort | Fast and directly retrieved from the database |
A comparison of nursing performance before and after introduction of the ICIS
| Item | 2012 (Paper-records) | 2013 (September, ICIS introduction) | 2014 (Electronic records) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ward management | 94.5 | 99.7 | 99.8 |
| Routine nursing practices | 99 | 99.7 | 99.8 |
| Disinfection and isolation | 94.1 | 96.9 | 99.8 |
| Nursing documentation | 97.3 | 99.7 | 99.96 |
| Infection rate | 29.3 | 20.0 | 16.1 |
| Mortality rate | 12.6 | 9.4 | 8.5 |