Rationale for Purchasing an AIMS

  • Jerry Stonemetz
  • Robert Lagasse
Part of the Health Informatics book series (HI)

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.


National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Core Measure Anesthesia Information Management System Computerize Physician Order Entry System Surgical Care Improvement Project 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Gravenstein JS. The automated anesthesia record. Int J Clin Monit Comput 1986; 3:131–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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; 2:246–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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, 2007Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beecher HK. The first anesthesia records (Codman and Cushing). Surg Gynecol Obstet 1940; 71:689–93Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bierstein K. Anesthesia information systems…Where awareness is good! ASA Newsletter 2007; 71(3):37–9Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Koppel R, Metlay JP, Cohen A, et al. Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. JAMA 2005; 293:1197–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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; 13:261–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frisse ME. Comments on return on investment (ROI) as it applies to clinical systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13:365–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovation, 5th ed. New York: Free Press, 2003Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    U.S. High Acuity Care Information Systems Markets. N07D-48. Palo Alto, CA: Frost & Sullivan, 2006Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Institute of Medicine. Corrigan J, Kohn L, Donaldson M, eds. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy, 1999Google Scholar
  12. 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, 2001Google Scholar
  13. 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; 107:892–902PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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. 15.
    Institute for Healthcare Improvement. IHI Innovation Series white paper. Improving the Reliability of Health Care. Boston, MA: Institute for Healthcare Improvement, 2004Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Surgical Care Improvement Project. http://www.aha.org/aha/issues/Quality-and-Patient-Safety/scip.html. Accessed June 15, 2007
  17. 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):322–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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; 137:20–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    APSF Long-term Workshop on Outcomes. http://www.apsf.org/assets/Documents/APSF_LTO_Wkshop_Report.pdf. Accessed December 18, 2007
  20. 20.
    Daley J, Henderson WG, Khuri SF. Risk-adjusted surgical outcomes. Annu Rev Med 2001; 52:275–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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; 40:373–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Macario A, Vitez TS, Dunn B, et al. Hospital costs and severity of illness in three types of elective surgery. Anesthesiology 1997; 86:92–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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;180:519–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 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; 85:977–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Thrush DN. Automated anesthesia records and anesthetic incidents. J Clin Monit Comput 1992; 8:59–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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; 16:211–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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):390–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    National Patient Safety Goals. http://www.jointcommission.org/PatientSafety/NationalPatient SafetyGoals/. Accessed December 18, 2007
  29. 29.
    Medicare Physician Quality Reporting Initiative Fact Sheet. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PQRI. Accessed June 20, 2007
  30. 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; 103:908–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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):1462–1466PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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):777–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Leapfrog Group. http://www.leapfroggroup.org/home. Accessed June 25, 2007
  34. 34.
    Healthgrades.com. Web site: http://www.healthgrades.com/. Accessed June 25, 2007
  35. 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; 7:91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Medicare Advisory Commission focuses on quality of care, patient safety. Qual Lett Healthc Lead 2004; 16(4):10–11Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pronovost P, Miller M, Wachter R. Tracking progress in patient safety. JAMA 2006; 296(6):696–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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; 12:194–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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–ii45PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jerry Stonemetz
    • Robert Lagasse
      • 1
    1. 1.Montefiore Medical CenterBronxUSA

    Personalised recommendations