Advertisement

Provider Access to Legacy Electronic Anesthesia Records Following Implementation of an Electronic Health Record System

  • Richard H. EpsteinEmail author
  • Franklin Dexter
  • Eric S. Schwenk
Systems-Level Quality Improvement
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Systems-Level Quality Improvement

Abstract

Many hospitals are in the process of replacing their legacy anesthesia information management system (AIMS) with an Electronic Health Record (EHR) system, within which the AIMS is integrated. Using the legacy AIMS security access log table, we studied the extent to which anesthesia providers were accessing historical anesthesia records (January 2006 – March 2017) following implementation of an EHR (April 2017). Statistical analysis was by segmented regression. At the time of implementation of the EHR, in 44.8% (SE = 0.3%) of cases, there was a prior anesthetic record for the patient that had been documented in the legacy AIMS. Following EHR implementation, the mean number of preoperative clinical views of all prior anesthetic records divided by the total number of cases performed decreased to 2.3% (0.3%) from the baseline of 25.1% (0.8%). The estimated ratio of the 2 means was 0.18 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.31, P < 0.00001). For views of unique records, the decrease was to 2.2% (0.3%) from the baseline of 18.3% (0.5%). The estimated ratio was 0.23 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.35, P < 0.00001). These results show that, following conversion to an integrated EHR, providing access to historical anesthesia records by maintaining the legacy AIMS is not an effective strategy to promote review of such records as part of the preoperative evaluation process. Because such records provide important information for many patients, providing linked access to such records within the EHR as part of the patient encounter may be a more effective approach.

Keywords

Medical record systems, computerized Information technology Process assessment (health care) 

Notes

Author’s contribution

Richard H. Epstein helped design the study, perform the statistical analyses, and write the manuscript. Franklin Dexter helped perform the statistical analyses and write the manuscript. Eric S. Schwenk secured approval from the Institutional Review Board and helped write the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The Authors have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Thomas Jefferson University institutional review board with waiver of patient consent on November 26, 2018 (Control #18D.053).

Supplementary material

10916_2019_1232_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (434 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 433 kb)
10916_2019_1232_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (76 kb)
ESM 2 (PDF 76 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Springman, S. R., Integration of the enterprise electronic health record and anesthesia information management systems. Anesthesiol. Clin. 29:455–483, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ehrenfeld, J. M., and Rehman, M. A., Anesthesia information management systems: a review of functionality and installation considerations. J. Clin. Monit. Comput. 25:71–79, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rogers, E. M., Diffusion of Innovations. 5th edition. New York, NY: Free of Glencoe, 2003.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stol, I. S., Ehrenfeld, J. M., and Epstein, R. H., Technology diffusion of anesthesia information management systems into academic anesthesia departments in the United States. Anesth. Analg. 118:644–650, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Norton, J. A., and Bass, F. M., A diffusion theory model of adoption and substitution for successive generations of high-technology products. Manag. Sci. 33:1069–1086, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Epstein, R. H., and Dexter, F., Database Quality and Access Issues Relevant to Research Using Anesthesia Information Management System Data. Anesth. Analg. 127(1):105–114, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wanderer, J. P., Gruss, C. L., and Ehrenfeld, J. M., Using visual Analytics to determine the utilization of preoperative anesthesia assessments. Appl. Clin. Inform. 6:629–637, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dexter, F., Marcon, E., Epstein, R. H., and Ledolter, J., Validation of statistical methods to compare cancellation rates on the day of surgery. Anesth. Analg. 101:465–473, 2005. ​Erratum in Anesth. Analg. 114: 693, 2012.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dexter, F., Epstein, R. H., Marcon, E., and Ledolter, J., Estimating the incidence of prolonged turnover times and delays by time of day. Anesthesiology 102:1242–1248, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dexter, F., Witkowski, T. A., and Epstein, R. H., Forecasting preanesthesia clinic appointment duration from the electronic medical record medication list. Anesth. Analg. 114:670–673, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wax, D. B., McCormick, P. J., Joseph, T. T., and Levin, M. A., An automated critical event screening and notification system to facilitate preanesthesia record review. Anesth. Analg. 126:606–610, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Medicine & Pain ManagementUniversity of MiamiMiamiUSA
  2. 2.Department of AnesthesiologySidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Division of Management Consulting, Department of AnesthesiaUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations