Part of the
book series (HI)
As described in previous chapters, AIMS have evolved from stand-alone physiologic parameter recorders to complex, cross-departmental information management systems. 1–4 As the role of the AIMS has changed, so too has the technical architecture. Clearly, users’ demands for increasingly comprehensive functionality have driven technical innovation, but technical advancement has undoubtedly allowed for functional innovation and maturation of AIMS.
The original anesthesia record keepers performed a local function. Data from anesthesia and monitoring equipment were downloaded to a nearby computer and stored there. A paper printout served as the lasting output of these systems; local data were purged. 3 Early AIMS development reflected the functional requirements and technical opportunities of that time. The original systems had localized architecture with minimal networking to centralized servers and little interfacing with other information systems. In contrast, more recent models reflect a technical and functional environment that requires reliable uptime networking, stringent medical record keeping, and integration with other perioperative information management systems (OR management systems, inventory systems, etc.) and hospital information systems (admission/discharge/transfer systems, laboratory information systems, etc.). The newer AIMS offer distributed storage systems, data redundancy options, and interfaces. However, they come with a concomitant complexity that may require robust IT support and management tools.
KeywordsHospital Information System Clinical Information System Disaster Preparedness Anesthesia Machine Anesthesia Record
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.
Bashein G, Barna CR. A comprehensive computer system for anesthetic record retrieval. Anesth Analg 1985; 64(4):425–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss PL, Turndorf H. A computerized anesthesia database. Anesth Analg 1989; 68:340–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edsall DW, Deshane P, Giles C, et al. Computerized patient anesthesia records: Less time and better quality than manually produced anesthesia records. J Clin Anesth 1993; 5(4):275–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Elmasri R, Navathe SB. Fundamentals of Database Systems, 4th ed
. Boston: Addison Wesley, 2003:340–3Google Scholar
Egan MT, Sandberg WS. Auto identification technology and its impact on patient safety in the operating room of the future. Surg Innov 2007; 14(1):41–50; discussion 51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reich DL, Wood RK, Jr, Mattar R, et al. Arterial blood pressure and heart rate discrepancies between handwritten and computerized anesthesia records. Anesth Analg 2000; 91:612–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigoda MM, Lubarsky DA. Failure to recognize loss of incoming data in an anesthesia record-keeping system may have increased medical liability. Anesth Analg 2006; 102(6):1798–802PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum JM, Kheterpal S, Tremper KK. A comparison of anesthesiology resident and faculty electronic evaluations before and after implementation of automated electronic reminders. J Clin Anesth 2006; 18:264–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kheterpal S, Gupta R, Blum JM, et al. Electronic reminders improve procedure documentation compliance and professional fee reimbursement. Anesth Analg 2007; 104(3):592–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spring SF, Sandberg WS, Anupama S, et al. Automated documentation error detection and notification improves anesthesia billing performance. Anesthesiology 2007; 106(1):157–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008