User acceptance of an anaesthesia information management system:

The state of adoption of anesthesia information management systems in Canadian academic anesthesia departments: a survey

PURPOSE

Anesthesia information management systems (AIMS) are gradually replacing paper documentation of anesthesia care. This study sought to determine the current status of AIMS adoption and the level of health informatics expertise in Canadian academic anesthesia departments.

METHODS

Department heads or their designates of Canadian academic anesthesia departments were invited by e-mail to complete an online survey between September 2019 and February 2020. The survey elicited information on current AIMS or future plans for an AIMS installation, the number of department members dedicated to clinical informatics issues, the gross level of health informatics expertise at each department, perceived advantages of AIMS, and perceived disadvantages of and barriers to implementation of AIMS.

RESULTS

Of the 64 departments invited to participate, 63 (98.4%) completed the survey. Only 21 (33.3%) of the departments had AIMS. Of the 42 departments still charting on paper, 23 (54.8%) reported planning to install an AIMS within the next five years. Forty-six departments (73%) had at least one anesthesiologist tasked with dealing with AIMS or electronic health record issues. Most reported having no department members with extensive knowledge or formal training in health informatics. The top three perceived barriers and disadvantages to an AIMS installation were its initial cost, lack of funding, and a lack of technical support dedicated specifically to AIMS. The top three advantages departments wished to prioritize with AIMS were accurate clinical documentation, better data for quality improvement initiatives, and better data for research.

CONCLUSIONS

A majority of Canadian academic anesthesia departments are still using paper records, but this trend is expected to reverse in the next five years as more departments install an AIMS. Health informatics expertise is lacking in most of the departments, with a minority planning to support the training of future anesthesia informaticians.

Amalgamation of management information system into anaesthesiology practice: A boon for the modern anaesthesiologists

Over the years, traditional anaesthesia record keeping system has been the backbone of anaesthesiology ever since its introduction in the 1890s by Dr. Harvey Cushing and Dr. Ernest A. Codman. Besides providing the important information regarding patients’ vital physiologic parameters, paper records had been a reliable source for various clinical research activities. The introduction of electronic monitoring gadgets and electronic record keeping systems has revolutionised the anaesthesiology practice to a large extent. Recently, the introduction of anaesthesia information management system (AIMS), which incorporates all the features of monitoring gadgets, such as electronic storage of large accurate data, quality assurance in anaesthesia, enhancing patient safety, ensuring legal protection, improved billing services and effecting an organisational change, is almost a revolution in modern-day anaesthesiology practice. The clinical research activities that are responsible for taking anaesthesiology discipline to higher peaks have also been boosted by the amalgamation of AIMS, enabling multicenter studies and sharing of clinical data. Barring few concerns in its installation, cost factors and functional aspects, the future of AIMS seems to be bright and will definitely prove to be a boon for modern-day anaesthesiology practice.

The use of a clinical database in an anesthesia unit: focus on its limits

Anesthesia information management system (AIMS) can be used a part of quality assurance program to improve patient care, however erroneous or missing data entries may lead to misinterpretation. This study assesses the accuracy of information extracted for six consecutive years from a database linked to an automatic anesthesia record-keeping system. An observational study was conducted on a database linked AIMS system. The database was filled in real time during surgical/anesthesia procedure and in the post-anesthesia care unit. The following items: name of the anesthetist, duration of anesthesia, duration of monitoring, ventilatory status upon arrival in postoperative care unit, pain scores, nausea and vomiting scores, pain medication (morphine) and anti nausea and vomiting drug consumption (ondansetron) were extracted and analysed in order to determine exhaustivity (percentage of missing data) and accuracy of the database. The analysis covered 55,946 anaesthetic procedures. The rate of missing data was initially high upon installation but decreased over time. It was limited to 5% after 3 years for items such as start of anesthesia or name of the anesthetist. However exhaustivity/completeness of some other variable, such as nausea and vomiting started as low as 50% to reach 20% at 2008. After cross analysing pain and post-operative nausea and vomiting scores with related medication consumption, (morphine and ondansetron) we conclude that missing data was due to omission of a zero score rather than human error. The follow-up of quality assurance program may use data from AIMS provided that missing or erroneous values be mentioned and their impact on calculations accurately analysed.

Ten key considerations for the successful implementation and adoption of large-scale health information technology

The implementation of health information technology interventions is at the forefront of most policy agendas internationally. However, such undertakings are often far from straightforward as they require complex strategic planning accompanying the systemic organizational changes associated with such programs. Building on our experiences of designing and evaluating the implementation of large-scale health information technology interventions in the USA and the UK, we highlight key lessons learned in the hope of informing the on-going international efforts of policymakers, health directorates, healthcare management, and senior clinicians.

Factors of accepting pain management decision support systems by nurse anesthetists

BACKGROUND

Pain management is a critical but complex issue for the relief of acute pain, particularly for postoperative pain and severe pain in cancer patients. It also plays important roles in promoting quality of care. The introduction of pain management decision support systems (PM-DSS) is considered a potential solution for addressing the complex problems encountered in pain management. This study aims to investigate factors affecting acceptance of PM-DSS from a nurse anesthetist perspective.

METHODS

A questionnaire survey was conducted to collect data from nurse anesthetists in a case hospital. A total of 113 questionnaires were distributed, and 101 complete copies were returned, indicating a valid response rate of 89.3%. Collected data were analyzed by structure equation modeling using the partial least square tool.

RESULTS

The results show that perceived information quality (γ=.451, p<.001), computer self-efficacy (γ=.315, p<.01), and organizational structure (γ=.210, p<.05), both significantly impact nurse anesthetists' perceived usefulness of PM-DSS. Information quality (γ=.267, p<.05) significantly impacts nurse anesthetists' perceptions of PM-DSS ease of use. Furthermore, both perceived ease of use (β=.436, p<.001, R(2)=.487) and perceived usefulness (β=.443, p<.001, R(2)=.646) significantly affected nurse anesthetists' PM-DSS acceptance (R2=.640). Thus, the critical role of information quality in the development of clinical decision support system is demonstrated.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study enable hospital managers to understand the important considerations for nurse anesthetists in accepting PM-DSS, particularly for the issues related to the improvement of information quality, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of the system. In addition, the results also provide useful suggestions for designers and implementers of PM-DSS in improving system development.

Comparative case study investigating sociotechnical processes of change in the context of a national electronic health record implementation

The introduction of electronic health records (EHRs) lies at the heart of many international efforts to improve the safety and quality of healthcare. England has attempted to introduce nationally procured EHR software--the first country in the world to do so. In this qualitative comparative case study tracing local developments over time we sought to generate a detailed picture of the implementation landscape characterising this first attempt at implementing nationally procured software through studying three purposefully selected hospitals. Despite differences in relation to demographic considerations and local implementation strategies, implementing hospitals faced similar technical and political challenges. These were coped with differently by the various organisations and individual stakeholders, their responses being shaped by contextual contingencies. We conclude that national implementation efforts need to allow effective technology adoption to occur locally before considering larger-scale interoperability. This should involve the allocation of sufficient time for individual users and organisations to adjust to the complex changes that often accompany such service re-design initiatives.

A survey of user acceptance of electronic patient anesthesia records

Background

An anesthesia information management system (AIMS), although not widely used in Korea, will eventually replace handwritten records. This hospital began using AIMS in April 2010. The purpose of this study was to evaluate users' attitudes concerning AIMS and to compare them with manual documentation in the operating room (OR).

Methods

A structured questionnaire focused on satisfaction with electronic anesthetic records and comparison with handwritten anesthesia records was administered to anesthesiologists, trainees, and nurses during February 2011 and the responses were collected anonymously during March 2011.

Results

A total of 28 anesthesiologists, 27 trainees, and 47 nurses responded to this survey. Most participants involved in this survey were satisfied with AIMS (96.3%, 82.2%, and 89.3% of trainees, anesthesiologists, and nurses, respectively) and preferred AIMS over handwritten anesthesia records in 96.3%, 71.4%, and 97.9% of trainees, anesthesiologists, and nurses, respectively. However, there were also criticisms of AIMS related to user-discomfort during short, simple or emergency surgeries, doubtful legal status, and inconvenient placement of the system.

Conclusions

Overall, most of the anesthetic practitioners in this hospital quickly accepted and prefer AIMS over the handwritten anesthetic records in the OR.

[Evaluation of a new computerized recording system for preoperative assessment data]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Little information is available on the use of computerized systems in preanesthetic assessment. Our aim was to evaluate staff acceptance of a computerized system for the structured recording of preoperative assessment data in our hospital. The time taken to complete the assessment was compared to the time usually taken to record the information on paper.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Observational, descriptive cross-sectional survey of user satisfaction 3 months after the system had been launched. We later carried out a prospective observational study of 796 preanesthetic assessment visits, comparing the mean time the users took to record information on paper to the time required to enter the data into the computer, analyzing differences between anesthesiologists and according to American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification and patient age.

RESULTS

A total of 401 paper records and 395 electronic files were included. The users believed that the computerized system improved quality and accessibility of recorded data and clinical decision-making. The time required to enter data into the computer was believed to be the main drawback; the users took a mean (SD) 15.21 (5.41) minutes to enter the electronic data and 13.37 (5.08) minutes to record the information on paper (P < .001). There were also significant differences in the time taken to record data according to ASA classification and between anesthesiologists (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In spite of drawbacks such as extra time taken to record electronic data, the users perceived benefits, such as improved quality and accessibility of records. For this reason, the computerized system was well accepted.

A Comparison of Electronic and Handwritten Anaesthetic Records for Completeness of Information

Complete documentation in anaesthetic records is important for patient management, research and quality assurance and has medicolegal implications. This study compares the completeness of information contained in electronic versus handwritten intraoperative anaesthetic records.

A sample of 70 handwritten records was randomly selected from anaesthesia performed in the month prior to implementation of the Integrated Injectable Drug Administration and Automated Anaesthesia Record System and compared to a similar sample of electronic records generated eight months later. A comprehensive scoring system, based on the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists’ guideline PS6, was used to compare the completeness of information throughout the entire intraoperative record.

There was no significant difference in the total score for completeness between electronic (78%) and handwritten (83%) records (P=0.16). Handwritten records were more complete with respect to weight (P <0.0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists’ physical status score (P <0.0001), the size and type of artificial airway used (P=0.003) and a record of the surgeons involved (P=0.0004). Electronic records were more complete with respect to a record of drug administration including intravenous drugs (P <0.0001), vapour (P=0.0001) and nitrous oxide/oxygen (P <0.0001), a record of end-tidal carbon dioxide monitoring (P=0.006) and the level of trainee supervision (P=0.0002).

There was no overall difference in the completeness of electronic versus handwritten records. Several differences did exist however, highlighting both clinically important advantages and deficiencies in the electronic system. Records from both systems sometimes lacked important information.

Evaluation of a computerized anesthesia report

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In Brazil, the use of information systems that allows filling out anesthesia reports automatically is still in its initial stages. The objective of this study was to validate an automated anesthesia record.

METHODS

This study was approved by the Ethics Commission of the institution; an industry-university partnership (Dixtal, São Paulo, Brazil and Universidade de São Paulo) was developed, and the study received a grant from FINEP (Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos do Ministério de Ciência e Tecnologia). The integration of hospital information systems for recovery of data regarding identification, preoperative evaluation, and laboratorial exams was the premise of this study. The applicability of the final version of the prototype of the automated system was evaluated by applying a semi-structured tool to 33 physicians, residents, and/or anesthesiologists during surgery procedures in 66 patients. Descriptive evaluation of the data was undertaken.

RESULTS

The computerized system was considered reliable even for large surgeries by 81% of the participants. The majority of the anesthesiologists considered the prototype of great value for future studies and capable of meeting the requirements of anesthesia reports, bringing benefits for anesthesiologists, patients, and hospitals. The full use of the system requires training and some of its aspects can be improved.

CONCLUSIONS

Validation of this prototype of a computerized system for elaboration of anesthesia reports showed the viability of this type of solution to help anesthesiologists in their daily tasks, increasing the reliability of the data. Besides, when evaluating the applicability, anesthesiologists considered that the prototype could be useful for patients, physicians, and hospitals.

A survey of anesthesiologists' and nurses' attitudes toward the implementation of an Anesthesia Information Management System on a labor and delivery floor

BACKGROUND

An anesthesia information management system (AIMS) is most frequently used in the operating room, but not on labor and delivery (L&D). The purpose of this study is to describe the implementation of an AIMS on L&D and the attitudes of practitioners (anesthesiologists and nurses) toward the system.

METHODS

The anesthesiology survey focused on satisfaction with the L&D AIMS, comparison of the L&D AIMS with a handwritten anesthesia record, and comparison of the L&D AIMS with the operating room AIMS. The nursing survey focused on nursing satisfaction with the L&D AIMS and comparison of the L&D AIMS with a handwritten anesthesia record.

RESULTS

Most anesthesiologists (76%) were satisfied with the L&D AIMS and 73% would not want to revert back to the paper record. However, most anesthesiologists felt the operating room AIMS was either superior or equal to the L&D AIMS. Although few nurses (4%) preferred the anesthesiologists revert back to the handwritten record overall, the nurses were neutral in their assessment of the AIMS. Most of the criticism related to the location of the system; 56% believed it was not in a convenient location and 74% thought the AIMS equipment "got in their way".

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the anesthesiologists and nurses are satisfied with the L&D AIMS and would not want to switch back to a handwritten record. We conclude that AIMS should not be limited to the operating room setting and can successfully be used in L&D.

The implementation of an anesthesia information management system

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Anaesthesia information management systems, though still not used widely, will inevitably replace handwritten records and may eventually serve as a core for the development of computerized decision support. We investigated staff expectations and the accuracy of data entry in a recently implemented commercially available anaesthesia information management system.

METHODS

A structured questionnaire was administered to the staff before and 1 week and 3 months after implementation in order to assess their opinion. The quality of manual data entry, and of automatic data record was evaluated by looking for missing data and the prevalence of artefacts.

RESULTS

Despite initial fears the users quickly accepted the system. Both automatic and manual data entry were found to be accurate and reliable while the prevalence of artefacts was relatively low.

CONCLUSIONS

A commercially available anaesthesia information management system can be easily implemented and used instead of paper charts.