Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Anesthesia recordkeeping: accuracy of recall with computerized and manual entry recordkeeping

  • Published:
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Anesthesia information management systems (AIMS) are rapidly gaining widespread acceptance. Aggressively promoted as an improvement to manual-entry recordkeeping systems (MERS) in the areas of accuracy, quality improvement, billing and vigilance, these systems record all patient vital signs and parameters, providing a legible hard copy and permanent electronic record. Concern exists that the practitioner may be less vigilant unless this data is recorded manually. This study’s purpose was to determine if vigilance, as measured by the ability to recall important data, is influenced by the method of recordkeeping. This study analyzed differences in the accuracy of Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists’ (CRNAs) recall of specific patient variables during the course of an actual anesthetic case. CRNAs using AIMS were compared to CRNAs using MERS. Accuracy of recalled values of 10 patient variables was measured: highest and lowest values for heart rate, systolic blood pressure, inspiratory pressure, and end-tidal carbon dioxide levels, lowest oxygen saturation and total fluid volume. Four tertiary care facilities participated in this research; two of which used MERS, two utilized AIMS. A total of 214 subjects participated in this study; 106 in the computerized recordkeeping group, and 108 in the manual entry recordkeeping group. Demographic covariates were analyzed to ensure homogeneity between groups and facilities. No significant statistical differences were identified between the accuracy of recall among the groups. There was no difference in the accuracy of practitioners’ recall of patient variables when using computerized or manual entry recordkeeping systems, suggesting little impact on vigilance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ishizawa Y. Special article: general anesthetic gases and the global environment. Anesth Analg. 2011;112:213–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Eichhorn JH, Cooper JB, Cullen DJ, Maier WR, Philip JH, Seeman RG. Standards for patient monitoring during anesthesia at harvard medical school. JAMA. 1986;256:1017–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Beecher HK. The first anesthesia records (codman, cushing). Surg Gynaecol Obstet. 1920;71:689–93.

    Google Scholar 

  4. McKesson EI. The technique of recording the effects of gas-oxygen mixtures, pressures, rebreathing and carbon-dioxid, with a summary of the effects. Anesth Analg. 1934;13:1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Heinrichs W, Monk S, Eberle B. Automated anesthesia record systems. Anaesthesist. 1997;46:574–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Vigoda MM, Gencorelli F, Lubarsky DA. Changing medical group behaviors: increasing the rate of documentation of quality assurance events using an anesthesia information system. Anesth Analg. 2006;103:390–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kheterpal S, Gupta R, Blum JM, Tremper KK, O’Reilly M, Kazanjian PE. Electronic reminders improve procedure documentation compliance and professional fee reimbursement. Anesth Analg. 2007;104:592–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Feldman JM. Do anesthesia information systems increase malpractice exposure? Results of a survey. Anesth Analg. 2004;99:840–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. O’Sullivan CT, Dexter F, Lubarsky DA, Vigoda MM. Evidence-based management assessment of return on investment from anesthesia information management systems. AANA J. 2007;75:43–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kennedy PJ, Feingold A, Wiener EL, Hosek RS. Analysis of tasks and human factors in anesthesia for coronary-artery bypass. Anesth Analg. 1976;55:374–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Abenstein JP, DeVos CB, Tarhan A, Tarhan S. Eight year’s experience with automated anesthesia record keeping: lessons learned—new directions taken. Int J Clin Monit Comput. 1992;9:117–29.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Thrush DN. Are automated anesthesia records better? J Clin Anesth. 1992;4:386–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Loeb RG. Monitor surveillance and vigilance of anesthesia residents. Anesthesiology. 1994;80:527–33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Yablok DO. Comparison of vigilance using automated versus handwritten records. Anesthesiology. 1990;73:A416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Weinger MB, Herndon OW, Gaba DM. The effect of electronic record keeping and transesophageal echocardiography on task distribution, workload, and vigilance during cardiac anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 1997;87:144–55.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. American Association of Nurse Anesthetists. Quality of Care in Anesthesia. 2008. Available at: http://www.aana.com/Resources.aspx?ucNavMenu_TSMenuTargetID=51&ucNavMenu_TSMenuTargetType=4&ucNavMenu_TSMenuID=6&id=180. Accessed 31 Mar 2008.

  17. AANA—Scope and Standards for Nurse Anesthesia Practice. 2008. Available at: http://www.aana.com/Resources.aspx?ucNavMenu_TSMenuTargetID=51&ucNavMenu_TSMenuTargetType=4&ucNavMenu_TSMenuID=6&id=783. Accessed 31 Mar 2008.

  18. ASA. Standards, guidelines and statements. 2008. Available at: http://www.asahq.org/publicationsAndServices/sgstoc.htm. Accessed 31 Mar 2008.

  19. Levitan D. AIMS poised to revolutionize anesthesia care. Anesthesiol News. 2008;34:8–11.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ehrenfeld JM, Rehman MA. Anesthesia information management systems: a review of functionality and installation considerations. J Clin Monit Comput. 2011;25:71–9.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Innovian Anesthesia—Your Competitive Advantage. 2008. Available at: http://www.draeger.com/MT/internet/EN/us/prodserv/products/inform_tech/innovian/pd_innovian.jsp. Accessed 28 Feb 2008.

  22. Issac S, Michael WB. Handbook in research and evaluation for education and the behavioral sciences. 3rd ed. San Deigo, CA: Edits; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Allard J, Dzwonczyk R, Yablok D, Block FE, McDonald JS. Effect of automatic record keeping on vigilance and record keeping time. Br J Anaesth. 1995;74:619–26.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Weinger MB, Reddy SB, Slagle JM. Multiple measures of anesthesia workload during teaching and nonteaching cases. Anesth Analg. 2004;98:1419–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zollinger RM Jr, Kreul JF, Schneider AJ. Man-made versus computer-generated anesthesia records. J Surg Res. 1977;22:419–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Paget NS, Lambert TF, Sridhar K. Factors affecting an anaesthetist’s work: some findings on vigilance and performance. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1981;9:359–65.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Kay J, Neal M. Effect of automatic blood pressure devices on vigilance of anesthesia residents. J Clin Monit. 1986;2:148–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Rosen AS, Rosenzweig W. Computerized anesthesia record. Anesthesiology. 1985;62:100–1.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Lees DE. Computerized anesthesia records may have drawbacks. Anesthesiology. 1985;63:236–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Noel TN. Computerized anesthesia records may be dangerous. Anesthesiology. 1986;60:300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Noel KR. Controversy in automated record keeping. J Clin Monit. 1991;7:280.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Saunders RJ. The automated anesthetic record will not automatically solve problems in record keeping. J Clin Monit. 1990;6:334–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Logas WG, McCarthy RJ, Narbone RF, Ivankovich AD. Analysis of the accuracy of the anesthetic record. Anesth Analg. 1987;66:S107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lerou JG, Dirksen R, van Daele M, Nijhuis GM, Crul JF. Automated charting of physiological variables in anesthesia: a quantitative comparison of automated versus handwritten anesthesia records. J Clin Monit. 1988;4:37–47.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Block FE Jr. Normal fluctuation of physiologic cardiovascular variables during anesthesia and the phenomenon of “smoothing.”. J Clin Monit. 1991;7:141–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 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;5:275–83.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Hogan WR, Wagner MM. Accuracy of data in computer-based patient records. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1997;4:342–55.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Driscoll WD, Columbia MA, Peterfreund RA. An observational study of anesthesia record completeness using an anesthesia information management system. Anesth Analg. 2007;104:1454–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Petry A, Gockel H, Wulf H. Computer-aided anesthesia monitoring. Experiences with the use of three systems in heart surgery. Anaesthesist. 1993;42:528–35.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. 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;85:977–87.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Benson M, Junger A, Fuchs C, Quinzio L, Bottger S, Hempelmann G. Use of an anesthesia information management system (AIMS) to evaluate the physiologic effects of hypnotic agents used to induce anesthesia. J Clin Monit Comput. 2000;16:183–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Jost A, Junger A, Zickmann B, et al. Potential benefits of anaesthesia information management systems for multicentre data evaluation: risk calculation of inotropic support in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Med Inform Internet Med. 2003;28:7–19.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Reich DL, Hossain S, Krol M, et al. Predictors of hypotension after induction of general anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 2005;101:622–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Lubarsky DA, Gan TJ, Glass PSA, et al. PACU clinical outcomes and financial savings following a pharmaceutical cost containment program in anesthesia using practice guidelines. Anesth Analg. 1996;82:S285.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Lubarsky DA, Sanderson IC, Gilbert WC, et al. Using an anesthesia information management system as a cost containment tool. Description and validation. Anesthesiology. 1997;86:1161–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Egger Halbeis CB, Epstein RH. The value proposition of anesthesia information management systems. Anesthesiol Clin. 2008;26:665–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Rosen AS, Rosenzweig W. In reply to computerized anesthesia records may have drawbacks. Anesthesiology. 1985;62:237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Rosen AS, Rosenzweig W. On computerized anesthesia records. Anesthesiology. 1986;65:131–2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Cook RI, McDonald JS, Nunziata E. Differences between handwritten and automatic blood pressure records. Anesthesiology. 1989;71:385–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Shibutani K, Bairamian M, Subhedar D, Kashiwagi N, Kubal K. Human factors affecting accuracy of hand-written arterial pressure record. Anesthesiology. 1990;73:A1014.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Gage JS. Artifacts. MD Comput. 1992;9:288–92.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Gibbs RF. The present and future medicolegal importance of record keeping in anesthesia and intensive care: the case for automation. J Clin Monit. 1989;5:251–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Vigoda MM, Lubarsky DA. The medicolegal importance of enhancing timeliness of documentation when using an anesthesia information system and the response to automated feedback in an academic practice. Anesth Analg. 2006;103:131–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Vigoda MM, Lubarsky DA. Failure to recognize loss of incoming data in an anesthesia record-keeping system may have increased medical liability. Anesth Analg. 2006;102:1798–802.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Weinger MB, Englund CE. Ergonomic and human factors affecting anesthetic vigilance and monitoring performance in the operating room environment. Anesthesiology. 1990;73:995–1021.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Woods DD, Cook RI, Billings CE. The impact of technology on physician cognition and performance. J Clin Monit. 1995;11:5–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Loeb RG. Manual record keeping is not necessary for anesthesia vigilance. J Clin Monit. 1995;11:9–13.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Stoelting RK. President Reports on State of APSF. 2008. Available at: http://www.apsf.org/resource_center/newsletter/2002/winter/02presidentreports.htm. Accessed 31 Mar 2008.

  59. Huslin A. Online health data in remission. Washington Post [Online Health Data]. 3/26/09 2009;2009:D01. Available from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/15/AR2009021501284.html. Accessed 6 Mar 2009.

  60. Field A. Discovering Statistics using SPSS. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications; 2005.

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest in the conduction and publication of this research.

Ethical standards

All experiments conducted through the course of this research comply with the current laws of the United States of America, and were approved by all relevant Institutional Review Boards.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nurse Anesthesia, School of Allied Health Professions, Virginia Commonwealth University, P.O. Box 980226, Richmond, VA, 23298-0226, USA

    Thomas Corey Davis & Chuck Biddle

  2. Department of Anesthesiology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, 23298-0695, USA

    Jeffrey A. Green & Alexander Colquhoun

  3. Department of Nursing, College of Health Sciences, Misercordia University, Dallas, PA, 18612, USA

    Brenda L. Hage

Authors
  1. Thomas Corey Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeffrey A. Green
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alexander Colquhoun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Brenda L. Hage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chuck Biddle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Corey Davis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Davis, T.C., Green, J.A., Colquhoun, A. et al. Anesthesia recordkeeping: accuracy of recall with computerized and manual entry recordkeeping. J Clin Monit Comput 26, 163–169 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-012-9349-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-012-9349-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation