Improving Computerized Charting in an Intensive Care Unit

  • Ben SmithEmail author
  • Sivamanoj Sreeramakavacham
  • Jung Hyup Kim
  • Laurel Despins
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10917)


The purpose of this study is to look deeper into an electronic medical record (EMR) system to find inefficiencies within the overall charting process. Along with collecting observation data on nurses within the University of Missouri Hospital Intensive Care Unit, EMR activity log data was gathered from the EMR system through a real time measurement system (RTMS). By using the RTMS data, the average time for several designated charting activities were analyzed based on different levels of patient sickness and nurse experience. The results showed that there were several significant differences on EMR documentation time in an ICU. The comprehensive findings of this study will help point to areas where improvements can be made in order to optimize efficiency within the EMR charting process and increase time nurses spend in direct patient care, which should in turn increase patient safety as well.


Intensive Care Unit Electronic medical record Charting 


  1. 1.
    Kauffman, A.: Doctors disagree on efficiency of electronic medical records. In: KOMU 2014 (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Holden, R.J.: Cognitive performance-altering effects of electronic medical records: an application of the human factors paradigm for patient safety. Cogn. Technol. Work 13(1), 11–29 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bradshaw, K.E., et al.: Computer-based data entry for nurses in the ICU. MD Comput. Comput. Med. Pract. 6(5), 274–280 (1989)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Parente, S.T., McCullough, J.S.: Health information technology and patient safety: evidence from panel data. Health Aff. 28(2), 357–360 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pierpont, G.L., Thilgen, D.: Effect of computerized charting on nursing activity in intensive care. Crit. Care Med. 23(6), 1067–1073 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wong, D.H., et al.: Changes in intensive care unit nurse task activity after installation of a third-generation intensive care unit information system. Crit. Care Med. 31(10), 2488–2494 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Charlson, M.E., et al.: A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J. Chronic Dis. 40(5), 373–383 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ceriani, R., et al.: Application of the sequential organ failure assessment score to cardiac surgical patients. Chest 123(4), 1229–1239 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Annett, J.: Hierarchical task analysis. Handb. Cogn. Task Des. 2, 17–35 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Song, X., Kim, J.H., Despins, L.: A time-motion study in an intensive care unit using the near field electromagnetic ranging system. In: Proceedings of the 2017 Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers (IISE). IIE Annual Conference (2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eley, R., et al.: The status of training and education in information and computer technology of Australian nurses: a national survey. J. Clin. Nurs. 17(20), 2758–2767 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rusanov, A., et al.: Hidden in plain sight: bias towards sick patients when sampling patients with sufficient electronic health record data for research. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Making 14(1), 51 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ben Smith
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sivamanoj Sreeramakavacham
    • 1
  • Jung Hyup Kim
    • 1
  • Laurel Despins
    • 2
  1. 1.Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering DepartmentUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.Sinclair School of Nursing University of MissouriColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations