Related Experiment Videos
Computerized patient anesthesia records: less time and better quality than manually produced anesthesia records
D W Edsall1, P Deshane, C Giles
1Department of Anesthesiology, Burbank Hospital, Fitchburg, MA 01420.
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia
|July 1, 1993
Summary
Computerized anesthesia information management systems (AIMS) require less anesthetist time and yield higher-quality records than manual systems. This study found AIMS improved documentation efficiency and completeness without negatively impacting patient care.
Area of Science:
- Anesthesiology
- Health Informatics
- Medical Record Management
Background:
- Manual anesthesia information management systems (AIMS) are time-consuming and can lead to incomplete records.
- Concerns exist that computerized AIMS may increase workload and detract from patient care.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare manual and computerized AIMS regarding anesthetist time demands.
- To evaluate the quality of records produced by manual versus computerized AIMS.
Main Methods:
- Videotaped anesthesia cases were reviewed alongside generated records.
- Anesthetists documented cases using both manual and computerized AIMS.
- The study was conducted in a community hospital setting.
Main Results:
- Computerized AIMS documentation took significantly less anesthetist time (14.9% vs. 36.6%).
- Computerized AIMS resulted in significantly more vital sign data points (245.2 vs. 45.0) and notes (61.0 vs. 40.0).
- Computer records were consistently legible, unlike manual records.
Conclusions:
- Computerized AIMS do not complicate the anesthesia environment or increase time demands.
- Computerized AIMS are more efficient and produce higher-quality records than manual systems.
- The study supports the adoption of computerized AIMS for improved anesthesia record-keeping.