Anesthesia Information System vs Paper Anesthesia Records for Care Congruency

Completed

• Conditions: Paper Versus EMR Generated Anesthesia Records
• Interventions: Other: Electronic Medical Record

• Registration Number: NCT02258100
• Lead Sponsor: NorthShore University HealthSystem

Brief Summary

To date the effect of AIMS on medical interventions has not been studied. We seek to retrospectively evaluate paper and electronic anesthesia records among a single surgical population (esophageal surgery) to ascertain any differences that may exist between cohorts with regards to chart completion, anesthetic management and medical care.

Detailed Description

Anesthesia information systems (AIMS) are increasingly used to electronically capture physiologic and management data during anesthesia. Proponents tout an improved accuracy of data yet this has not been formally evaluated. Furthermore, whether AIMS is associated with changes in medical care is unknown. Studies with newer technologies have demonstrated increased medical interventions as a result of implementation. The pulmonary artery catheter was shown to increase medical interventions when used yet no improvement in outcomes are observed and some suggest a deleterious effect. 1 Several studies suggest improved patient care with electronic anesthesia records. 2,3 These all center around clinical decision support that reminds clinicians to give certain medications or ensure chart completion. Despite these advantages there are no studies evaluating the 'hawthorne effect' of AIMS. Physiologic data is now recorded at each data point using AIMS. This differs significantly from paper anesthesia records in which clinicians often chart physiologic trends choosing to omit spurious values. It is possible that a Hawthorne effect may occur in this scenario with increased data collection and an increased ability to scrutinize the medical record. Given the litigious nature of medical practice today, there is concern about the impact of AIMS on medicolegal liability. 4 Yet, to date the effect of AIMS on medical interventions has not been studied. We seek to retrospectively evaluate paper and electronic anesthesia records among a single surgical population (esophageal surgery) to ascertain any differences that may exist between cohorts with regards to chart completion, anesthetic management and medical care.

Study Timeline

• Study Start: 2014-09
• Study First Submitted: 2014-10-01
• Study First Submitted QC: 2014-10-02
• Study First Posted: 2014-10-07
• Primary Completion: 2015-04
• Study Completion: 2015-04
• Status Verified: 2019-09
• Last Update Submitted: 2019-09-09
• Last Update Posted: 2019-09-11

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: COMPLETED
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 189

Inclusion Criteria

• Underwent esophageal surgery and had anesthetic documented in medical record

Exclusion Criteria

• Cases less than one hour

Study & Design

• Study Type: OBSERVATIONAL
• Study Design: Not specified

Arm && Interventions

Group	Intervention	Description
AIMS	Electronic Medical Record	Patients receiving care documented via electronic anesthesia record.

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Anesthetic Care; Drugs delivered	Anesthesia start to Anesthesia Stop	Intraoperative anesthetic medications; Total dose and number of interventions for all drugs; Fentanyl, ephedrine, phenylephrine, norepinephrine, labetalol, nicardidipine, esmolol, hydrazine
documented hypotension	Anesthesia start to Anesthesia End (Intraoperative)	Intraoperative hypotension; Each occurrence less then 20% of patient's baseline, calculated from preoperative systolic BP; Duration of hypotension; associated medical treatment

Trial Locations

Locations (1)

Evanston Hospital; 🇺🇸 Evanston, Illinois, United States