Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 25, 2025

E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
Published on: August 1, 2019
Electronic charts do not facilitate the recognition of patient hazards by advanced medical students: A randomized
Friederike Holderried1, Anne Herrmann-Werner2, Moritz Mahling3
1Department of Anaesthesiology, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany.
Abstract:
Chart review is an important tool to identify patient hazards. Most advanced medical students perform poorly during chart review but can learn how to identify patient hazards context-independently. Many hospitals have implemented electronic health records, which enhance patient safety but also pose challenges. We investigated whether electronic charts impair advanced medical students' recognition of patient hazards compared with traditional paper charts. Fifth-year medical students were randomized into two equal groups. Both groups attended a lecture on patient hazards and a training session on handling electronic health records. One group reviewed an electronic chart with 12 standardized patient hazards and then reviewed another case in a paper chart; the other group reviewed the charts in reverse order. The two case scenarios (diabetes and gastrointestinal bleeding) were used as the first and second case equally often. After each case, the students were briefed about the patient safety hazards. In total, 78.5% of the students handed in their notes for evaluation. Two blinded raters independently assessed the number of patient hazards addressed in the students' notes. For the diabetes case, the students identified a median of 4.0 hazards [25%-75% quantiles (Q25-Q75): 2.0-5.5] in the electronic chart and 5.0 hazards (Q25-Q75: 3.0-6.75) in the paper chart (equivalence testing, p = 0.005). For the gastrointestinal bleeding case, the students identified a median of 5.0 hazards (Q25-Q75: 4.0-6.0) in the electronic chart and 5.0 hazards (Q25-Q75: 3.0-6.0) in the paper chart (equivalence testing, p < 0.001). We detected no improvement between the first case [median 5.0 (Q25-Q75: 3.0-6.0)] and second case [median, 5.0 (Q25-Q75: 3.0-6.0); p < 0.001, test for equivalence]. Electronic charts do not seem to facilitate advanced medical students' recognition of patient hazards during chart review and may impair expertise formation.
More Related Videos
07:31Implementation of a Real-Time Psychosis Risk Detection and Alerting System Based on Electronic Health Records using CogStack
Published on: May 15, 2020
05:03Patient Directed Recording of a Bipolar Three-Lead Electrocardiogram using a Smartwatch with ECG Function
Published on: December 11, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Guidelines and Strategies for Safe Computer Charting
Maintain Confidentiality and Security:
Methods of Documentation IV: Focus Charting
It typically involves three columns for recording information:
Methods of Documentation VII: EMR
Methods of Documentation III: PIE
Methods of Documentation V: CBE
In CBE, healthcare professionals establish predefined standards of practice that define what constitutes...
Errors occurring during blood pressure monitoring
Several factors...