Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T11:11:41.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

User acceptance of an anaesthesia information management system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2005

L. Quinzio ,
A. Junger ,
B. Gottwald ,
M. Benson ,
B. Hartmann ,
A. Jost ,
A. Banzhaf  and
G. Hempelmann
L. Quinzio
Affiliation:
University Hospital Giessen, Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Therapy, Germany
A. Junger
Affiliation:
University Hospital Giessen, Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Therapy, Germany
B. Gottwald
Affiliation:
University Hospital Giessen, Department of Medical Psychology, Germany
M. Benson
Affiliation:
University Hospital Giessen, Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Therapy, Germany
B. Hartmann
Affiliation:
University Hospital Giessen, Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Therapy, Germany
A. Jost
Affiliation:
University Hospital Giessen, Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Therapy, Germany
A. Banzhaf
Affiliation:
University Hospital Giessen, Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Therapy, Germany
G. Hempelmann
Affiliation:
University Hospital Giessen, Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Therapy, Germany
Get access

Extract

Summary

Background and objective: This paper describes the user acceptance of an anaesthesia information management system at the University Hospital in Giessen, Germany, after 5 yr of routine use.

Methods: A questionnaire with 75 items was distributed to all anaesthesiologists and anaesthetic nurses of the Department of Anaesthesiology. The questions were answered anonymously on a five-point Likert scale.

Results: The return rate was 60% (44 physicians and 24 nurses). The results indicated that the system generally met user expectations. The respondents thought that electronic record keeping improved the quality of their work, and they did not want to switch back to paper records. Problems arose with hardware placement and software features, e.g. coding tools for diagnoses and type of surgery. The perceived quality of training strongly influenced user acceptance.

Conclusions: Despite the deficits revealed by the survey, the respondents did not want to switch back to manual record keeping. A structured user survey is a useful tool for the development, adaptation and implementation of an anaesthesia information management system. A training strategy that takes the needs of the users into account is recommended.

Keywords

DATA COLLECTION, questionnairesMANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, hospital information systemMEDICAL RECORD SYSTEMS, COMPUTERIZEDTEACHINGcomputer user training
Type
Original Article
Information
European Journal of Anaesthesiology , Volume 20 , Issue 12 , December 2003 , pp. 967 - 972
Copyright
© 2003 European Society of Anaesthesiology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Sanborn KV, Castro J, Kuroda M, Thys DM. Detection of intraoperative incidents by electronic scanning of computerized anesthesia records. Comparison with voluntary reporting. Anesthesiology 1996; 85: 977–987.Google Scholar
Reich DL, Wood RK, Mattar R, et al. Arterial blood pressure and heart rate discrepancies between handwritten and computerized anesthesia records. Anesth Analg 2000; 91: 612–616.Google Scholar
Benson M, Junger A, Fuchs C, et al. Using an anesthesia information management system to prove a deficit in voluntary reporting of adverse events in a quality assurance program. J Clin Monit 2000; 16: 211–217.Google Scholar
Junger A, Klasen J, Benson M, et al. Factors determining length of stay of surgical day-case patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2001; 18: 314–321.Google Scholar
Junger A, Hartmann B, Benson M, et al. The use of an anesthesia information management system for prediction of antiemetic rescue treatment at the postanaesthesia care unit. Anesth Analg 2001; 92: 1203–1209.Google Scholar
Lubarsky DA, Sanderson IC, Gilbert WC, et al. Using an anesthesia information management system as a cost containment tool. Description and validation. Anesthesiology 1997; 86: 1161–1169.Google Scholar
Thrush DN. Are automated anesthesia records better? J Clin Anesth 1992; 4: 386–389.Google Scholar
Patel VL, Kushniruk AW, Yang S, Yale JF. Impact of a computer-based patient record system on data collection, knowledge organization, and reasoning. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2000; 7: 569–585.Google Scholar
Ammenwerth E, Eichstadter R, Haux R, Pohl U, Rebel S, Ziegler S. A randomized evaluation of a computer-based nursing documentation system. Methods Inf Med 2001; 40: 61–68.Google Scholar
Junger A, Benson M, Quinzio L, et al. Anwenderzufriedenheit von Patienten-Daten-Management-Systemen (PDMS) in der Intensivmedizin. Stud Health Technol Inform 2000; 77: 513–517.Google Scholar
Benson M, Junger A, Quinzio L, et al. Clinical and practical requirements of online software for anesthesia documentation an experience report. Int J Med Inf 2000; 57: 155–164.Google Scholar
Benson M, Junger A, Quinzio L, et al. Data processing at the anesthesia workstation: from data entry to data presentation. Methods Inf Med 2000; 39: 319–324.Google Scholar
Wang X, Gardner RM, Seager PR. Integrating computerized anesthesia charting into a hospital information system. Int J Clin Monit Comput 1995; 12: 61–70.Google Scholar
Edsall DW, Deshane P, Giles C, Dick D, Sloan B, Farrow J. Computerized patient anesthesia records: less time and better quality than manually produced anesthesia records. J Clin Anesth 1993; 5: 275–283.Google Scholar
Wager KA, Lee FW, White AW, Ward DM, Ornstein SM. Impact of an electronic medical record system on community-based primary care practices. J Am Board Fam Pract 2000; 13: 338–348.Google Scholar
Gardner RM, Prakash O. Challenges and opportunities for computerizing the anesthesia record. J Clin Anesth 1994; 6: 333–341.Google Scholar
Hodge B, Thompson JF. Noise pollution in the operating theatre. Lancet 1990; 335: 891–894.Google Scholar
Hohnloser JH, Kadlec P, Puerner F. Coding clinical information: analysis of clinicians using computerized coding. Method Inf Med 1996; 35: 104–107.Google Scholar
Krall MA, Chin H, Dworkin L, Gabriel K, Wong R. Improving clinician acceptance and use of computerized documentation of coded diagnosis. Am J Manag Care 1997; 3: 597–601.Google Scholar
Boy O, Ohmann C, Aust B, et al. Systematische Evaluierung der Anwenderzufriedenheit von Ärzten mit einem Krankenhausinformationssystem – Erste Ergebnisse. Stud Health Technol Inform 2000; 77: 518–522.Google Scholar
Cork RD, Detmer WM, Friedman CP. Development and initial validation of an instrument to measure physicians' use of, knowledge about, and attitudes toward computers. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1998; 5: 164–176.Google Scholar
Dumont R, van der Loo R, van Merode F, Tange H. User needs and demands of a computer-based patient record. Medinfo 1998; 9: 64–69.Google Scholar