Advertisement

Perioperative Process Improvement

  • Paul st. Jacques
  • Michael Higgins
Part of the Health Informatics book series (HI)

Data collection and analysis is the cornerstone and first step toward process improvement. Through integration of multisource data and delivery of processed data to multiple users in a real-time, near real-time, or periodic fashion, an AIMS has several distinct advantages over traditional paper-based record-keeping systems. For example, data collection can be handled in a manual process in which codification occurs by the user at the time of entry, or in an automated fashion in which data are collected and codified by the electronic system without user intervention. Improving the accuracy and completeness of data collection produces improvements in the quality and quantity of data available for subsequent analysis. Improvements have been shown in detection of adverse events, in which the rates of reporting are notoriously low when the data are self-reported. 1 Data processing can also be immediate, yielding potentially important on-the-fly decision-support information. These data can then be relayed to clinicians in the field via alphanumeric pagers, wall-mounted computer displays, or handheld computers. Alternately, data can be queued for offline multiphase review and analysis. Reports can be produced in a standardized format through monthly reports delivered to decision makers, or they can be produced via database queries or on-demand data aggregation at the level of granularity that is required.

Keywords

Anesthesia Information Management System Quality Assurance Process Electronic Data System Surgical Schedule Online Analytical Processing 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Benson M, Junger A, Michel A, et al. Comparison of manual and automated documentation of adverse events with an anesthesia information management system (AIMS). Stud Health Technol Inform 2000; 77:925–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, Institute of Medicine. Kohn LT, Donaldson MS, eds. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: The National Academies, 2000Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies, 2001Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brailer DJ. Health information technology is a vehicle, not a destination: A conversation with David J. Brailer. Interview by Arnold Milstein. Health Affairs (Project Hope) 2007; 26:w236–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee J. The anaesthetic outpatient clinic. Anaesthesia 1949; 4:169–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    St. Jacques PJ, Higgins MS. Beyond cancellations: Decreased day of surgery delays from a dedicated preoperative clinic may provide cost savings. J Clin Anesth 2004; 16:478–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pollard JB, Zboray AL, Mazze RI. Economic benefits attributed to opening a preoperative evaluation clinic for outpatients. Anesth Analg 1996; 83:407–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brown DL, Warner ME, Schroeder DR, et al. Effect of intraoperative anesthetic events on postoperative patient satisfaction. Mayo Clin Proc 1997; 72:20–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hepner DL, Bader AM, Hurwitz S, et al. Patient satisfaction with preoperative assessment in a preoperative assessment testing clinic. Anesth Analg 2004; 98:1099–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ferschl MB, Tung A, Sweitzer B, et al. Preoperative clinic visits reduce operating room cancellations and delays. Anesthesiology 2005; 103:855–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sandberg WS, Hakkinen M, Egan M, et al. Automatic detection and notification of “wrong patient-wrong location” errors in the operating room. Surg Innov 2005; 12:253–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meyer M, Chueh H, Egan M, et al. Using location tracking data to assess efficiency in established clinical workflows. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2006:1031Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mazzei WJ. Operating room start times and turnover times in a university hospital. J Clin Anesth 1994; 6:405–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dexter F, Coffin S, Tinker JH. Decreases in anesthesia-controlled time cannot permit one additional surgical operation to be reliably scheduled during the workday. Anesth Analg 1995; 81:1263–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Overdyk FJ, Harvey SC, Fishman RL, et al. Successful strategies for improving operating room efficiency at academic institutions. Anesth Analg 1998; 86:896–906PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vigoda MM, Lubarsky DA. Failure to recognize loss of incoming data in an anesthesia recordkeeping system may have increased medical liability. Anesth Analg 2006; 102:1798–802PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Meyer M, Levine WC, Brzezinski P, et al. Integration of hospital information systems, operative and perioperative information systems, and operative equipment into a single information display. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2005:1054Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Levine WC, Meyer M, Brzezinski P, et al. Usability factors in the organization and display of disparate information sources in the operative environment. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2005:1025Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul st. Jacques
    • 1
  • Michael Higgins
    • 1
  1. 1.Vanderbilt University School of MedicineNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations