Accuracy and speed of electronic health record versus paper-based ophthalmic documentation strategies
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved..
PURPOSE: To compare accuracy and speed of keyboard and mouse electronic health record (EHR) documentation strategies with those of a paper documentation strategy.
DESIGN: Prospective cohort study.
METHODS: Three documentation strategies were developed: (1) keyboard EHR, (2) mouse EHR, and (3) paper. Ophthalmology trainees recruited for the study were presented with 5 clinical cases and documented findings using each strategy. For each case-strategy pair, findings and documentation time were recorded. Accuracy of each strategy was calculated based on sensitivity (fraction of findings in actual case that were documented by subject) and positive ratio (fraction of findings identified by subject that were present in the actual case).
RESULTS: Twenty subjects were enrolled. A total of 258 findings were identified in the 5 cases, resulting in 300 case-strategy pairs and 77 400 possible total findings documented. Sensitivity was 89.1% for the keyboard EHR, 87.2% for mouse EHR, and 88.6% for the paper strategy (no statistically significant differences). The positive ratio was 99.4% for the keyboard EHR, 98.9% for mouse EHR, and 99.9% for the paper strategy (P < .001 for mouse EHR vs paper; no significant differences between other pairs). Mean ± standard deviation documentation speed was significantly slower for the keyboard (2.4 ± 1.1 seconds/finding) and mouse (2.2 ± 0.7 seconds/finding) EHR compared with the paper strategy (2.0 ± 0.8 seconds/finding). Documentation speed of the mouse EHR strategy worsened with repetition.
CONCLUSIONS: No documentation strategy was perfectly accurate in this study. Documentation speed for both EHR strategies was slower than with paper. Further studies involving total physician time requirements for ophthalmic EHRs are required.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2013 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2013 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:156 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
American journal of ophthalmology - 156(2013), 1 vom: 01. Juli, Seite 165-172.e2 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Chan, Patrick [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Comparative Study |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 06.09.2013 Date Revised 31.03.2022 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1016/j.ajo.2013.02.010 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM227401662 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM227401662 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231224073629.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231224s2013 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.ajo.2013.02.010 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n0758.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM227401662 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)23664152 | ||
| 035 | |a (PII)S0002-9394(13)00137-2 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Chan, Patrick |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Accuracy and speed of electronic health record versus paper-based ophthalmic documentation strategies |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2013 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 06.09.2013 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 31.03.2022 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. | ||
| 520 | |a PURPOSE: To compare accuracy and speed of keyboard and mouse electronic health record (EHR) documentation strategies with those of a paper documentation strategy | ||
| 520 | |a DESIGN: Prospective cohort study | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: Three documentation strategies were developed: (1) keyboard EHR, (2) mouse EHR, and (3) paper. Ophthalmology trainees recruited for the study were presented with 5 clinical cases and documented findings using each strategy. For each case-strategy pair, findings and documentation time were recorded. Accuracy of each strategy was calculated based on sensitivity (fraction of findings in actual case that were documented by subject) and positive ratio (fraction of findings identified by subject that were present in the actual case) | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: Twenty subjects were enrolled. A total of 258 findings were identified in the 5 cases, resulting in 300 case-strategy pairs and 77 400 possible total findings documented. Sensitivity was 89.1% for the keyboard EHR, 87.2% for mouse EHR, and 88.6% for the paper strategy (no statistically significant differences). The positive ratio was 99.4% for the keyboard EHR, 98.9% for mouse EHR, and 99.9% for the paper strategy (P < .001 for mouse EHR vs paper; no significant differences between other pairs). Mean ± standard deviation documentation speed was significantly slower for the keyboard (2.4 ± 1.1 seconds/finding) and mouse (2.2 ± 0.7 seconds/finding) EHR compared with the paper strategy (2.0 ± 0.8 seconds/finding). Documentation speed of the mouse EHR strategy worsened with repetition | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSIONS: No documentation strategy was perfectly accurate in this study. Documentation speed for both EHR strategies was slower than with paper. Further studies involving total physician time requirements for ophthalmic EHRs are required | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Comparative Study | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Thyparampil, Preeti J |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Chiang, Michael F |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t American journal of ophthalmology |d 1945 |g 156(2013), 1 vom: 01. Juli, Seite 165-172.e2 |w (DE-627)NLM000124443 |x 1879-1891 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:156 |g year:2013 |g number:1 |g day:01 |g month:07 |g pages:165-172.e2 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2013.02.010 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 156 |j 2013 |e 1 |b 01 |c 07 |h 165-172.e2 | ||