Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rationale for Purchasing an AIMS

  • Chapter
Anesthesia Informatics

Part of the book series: Health Informatics ((HI))

  • 1270 Accesses

The editors of this book assume that its readers either have recently made the decision to purchase an AIMS or are contemplating a purchase soon. The material presented in this book is intended to be a resource for facilities as they attempt to revise current workflow and behavior to become more facile in their electronic documentation. However, it is reasonable to ask why these systems are important or even necessary. Is it appropriate to risk expending large amounts of resources— both capital and human—and to potentially alter the entire workflow of an organization? What factors make this decision relevant for an institution, and how will an organization realize a return on investment (ROI) as a result of this decision? These questions and others must be addressed at the beginning of the decision-making process. The goal of this chapter is to provide some answers.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Gravenstein JS. The automated anesthesia record. Int J Clin Monit Comput 1986; 3:131–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Klocke H, Trispel S, Rau G, et al. An anesthesia information system for monitoring and record keeping during surgical anesthesia. J Clin Monit Comput 1986; 2:246–61

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation. APSF endorses use of automated record keepers. APSF Newsletter 2001; 16(4):49. http://www.apsf.org/resource_center/newsletter/2001/winter/02ARK.htm. Accessed December 18, 2007

    Google Scholar 

  4. Beecher HK. The first anesthesia records (Codman and Cushing). Surg Gynecol Obstet 1940; 71:689–93

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bierstein K. Anesthesia information systems…Where awareness is good! ASA Newsletter 2007; 71(3):37–9

    Google Scholar 

  6. Koppel R, Metlay JP, Cohen A, et al. Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. JAMA 2005; 293:1197–203

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kaushal R, Jha AK, Franz C, et al. Return on investment for a computerized physician order entry system. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13:261–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Frisse ME. Comments on return on investment (ROI) as it applies to clinical systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13:365–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovation, 5th ed. New York: Free Press, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  10. U.S. High Acuity Care Information Systems Markets. N07D-48. Palo Alto, CA: Frost & Sullivan, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  11. Institute of Medicine. Corrigan J, Kohn L, Donaldson M, eds. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  12. Institute of Medicine. Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health Care System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kheterpal S, Tremper K, Englesbe M, et al. Predictors of postoperative acute renal failure after noncardiac surgery in patients with previously normal renal function. Anesthesiology 2007; 107:892–902

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Facts about ORYX for hospitals, core measures, and hospital core measures. http://www.jointcommission.org/AccreditationPrograms/Hospitals/ORYX/oryx_facts.htm. Accessed June 15, 2007

  15. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. IHI Innovation Series white paper. Improving the Reliability of Health Care. Boston, MA: Institute for Healthcare Improvement, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  16. Surgical Care Improvement Project. http://www.aha.org/aha/issues/Quality-and-Patient-Safety/scip.html. Accessed June 15, 2007

  17. Bratzler DW, Hunt DR. The surgical infection prevention and surgical care improvement projects: National initiatives to improve outcomes for patients having surgery. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 43(3):322–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Khuri S, Daley J, Henderson WG. The comparative assessment and improvement of quality of surgical care in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Arch Surg 2002; 137:20–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. APSF Long-term Workshop on Outcomes. http://www.apsf.org/assets/Documents/APSF_LTO_Wkshop_Report.pdf. Accessed December 18, 2007

  20. Daley J, Henderson WG, Khuri SF. Risk-adjusted surgical outcomes. Annu Rev Med 2001; 52:275–87

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40:373–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Macario A, Vitez TS, Dunn B, et al. Hospital costs and severity of illness in three types of elective surgery. Anesthesiology 1997; 86:92–100

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Khuri SF, Daley J, Henderson WG, et al. The National VA Surgical Risk Study: Risk adjustment for the comparative assessment of the quality of surgical care. J Am Coll Surg 1995;180:519–31

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Sanborn KV, Castro J, Kuroda M, et al. 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 

  25. Thrush DN. Automated anesthesia records and anesthetic incidents. J Clin Monit Comput 1992; 8:59–61

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Benson M, Junger A, Fuchs C, et al. Using an anesthesia information management system to prove a deficit in voluntary reporting of adverse events in a quality assurance program. J Clin Monit Comput 200; 16:211–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Vigoda M, Gencorelli F, Lubarsky D. Changing medical group behaviors: Increasing the rate of documentation of quality assurance events using an anesthesia information system. Anesth Analg 2006; 103(2):390–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. National Patient Safety Goals. http://www.jointcommission.org/PatientSafety/NationalPatient SafetyGoals/. Accessed December 18, 2007

  29. Medicare Physician Quality Reporting Initiative Fact Sheet. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PQRI. Accessed June 20, 2007

  30. O'Reilly M, Talsma A, VanRiper S, et al. An anesthesia information system designed to provide physician-specific feedback improves timely administration of prophylactic antibiotics. Anesth Analg 2006; 103:908–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Wax DB, Beilin Y, Levin M, et al. The effect of an interactive visual reminder in an anesthsia information management system on timeliness of prophylactic antibiotic administration. Anesth Analg 2007; 104(6):1462–1466

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Jacobson B, Mindell J, McKee M. Hospital mortality league tables: Question what they tell you—and how useful they are. Br Med J 2003; 326(7393):777–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Leapfrog Group. http://www.leapfroggroup.org/home. Accessed June 25, 2007

  34. Healthgrades.com. Web site: http://www.healthgrades.com/. Accessed June 25, 2007

  35. Pitches D, Mohammed M, Lilford R. What is the empirical evidence that hospitals with higher-risk adjusted mortality rates provide poorer quality care? A systematic review of the literature. BMC Health Serv Res 2007; 7:91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Medicare Advisory Commission focuses on quality of care, patient safety. Qual Lett Healthc Lead 2004; 16(4):10–11

    Google Scholar 

  37. Pronovost P, Miller M, Wachter R. Tracking progress in patient safety. JAMA 2006; 296(6):696–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Rozich J, Haraden C, Resar R. Adverse drug event trigger tool: A practical methodology for measuring medication related harm. Qual Saf Health Care 2003; 12:194–200

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Resar R, Rozich J, Classen D. Methodology and rationale for the measurement of harm with trigger tools. Qual Saf Health Care 2003; 12(Suppl II):ii39–ii45

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA

    Robert Lagasse

Authors
  1. Jerry Stonemetz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Lagasse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer-Verlag London Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Stonemetz, J., Lagasse, R. (2008). Rationale for Purchasing an AIMS. In: Anesthesia Informatics. Health Informatics. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-76418-4_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-76418-4_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-76417-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-76418-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation