Article Text

other Versions

PDF
Randomised trial comparing the recording ability of a novel, electronic emergency documentation system with the AHA paper cardiac arrest record
  1. Eliot Grigg1,
  2. Andrew Palmer1,
  3. Jeffrey Grigg2,
  4. Peter Oppenheimer3,
  5. Tim Wu4,
  6. Axel Roesler5,
  7. Bala Nair1,
  8. Brian Ross1
  1. 1Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
  2. 2Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
  3. 3Department of Surgery and the Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Institute for Simulation and Interprofessional Studies, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
  4. 4Department of Medical Education and Biomedical Informatics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
  5. 5Division of Design, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Eliot Grigg, Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle Children's Hospital, 4800 Sand Point Way NE, MS 9824, Seattle, WA 98105, USA; egrigg{at}uw.edu

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the ability of an electronic system created at the University of Washington to accurately document prerecorded VF and pulseless electrical activity (PEA) cardiac arrest scenarios compared with the American Heart Association paper cardiac arrest record.

Methods 16 anaesthesiology residents were randomly assigned to view one of two prerecorded, simulated VF and PEA scenarios and asked to document the event with either the paper or electronic system. Each subject then repeated the process with the other video and documentation method. Five types of documentation errors were defined: (1) omission, (2) specification, (3) timing, (4) commission and (5) noise. The mean difference in errors between the paper and electronic methods was analysed using a single factor repeated measures ANOVA model.

Results Compared with paper records, the electronic system omitted 6.3 fewer events (95% CI −10.1 to −2.5, p=0.003), which represents a 28% reduction in omission errors. Users recorded 2.9 fewer noise items (95% CI −5.3 to −0.6, p=0.003) when compared with paper, representing a 36% decrease in redundant or irrelevant information. The rate of timing (Δ=−3.2, 95% CI −9.3 to 3.0, p=0.286) and commission (Δ=−4.4, 95% CI −9.4 to 0.5, p=0.075) errors were similar between the electronic system and paper, while the rate of specification errors were about a third lower for the electronic system when compared with the paper record (Δ=−3.2, 95% CI −6.3 to −0.2, p=0.037).

Conclusions Compared with paper documentation, documentation with the electronic system captured 24% more critical information during a simulated medical emergency without loss in data quality.

  • Resuscitation
  • Cardiac Arrest
  • Cardiac Care, Care Systems
  • Communications
  • Data Management

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.