首页> 外文期刊>Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : >Point-of-care clinical documentation: assessment of a bladder cancer informatics tool (eCancerCareBladder): a randomized controlled study of efficacy, efficiency and user friendliness compared with standard electronic medical records.
【24h】

Point-of-care clinical documentation: assessment of a bladder cancer informatics tool (eCancerCareBladder): a randomized controlled study of efficacy, efficiency and user friendliness compared with standard electronic medical records.

机译:即时护理临床文档:评估膀胱癌信息学工具(eCancerCareBladder):与标准电子病历相比,对疗效,效率和用户友好性进行的随机对照研究。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

OBJECTIVE: To compare the use of structured reporting software and the standard electronic medical records (EMR) in the management of patients with bladder cancer. The use of a human factors laboratory to study management of disease using simulated clinical scenarios was also assessed. DESIGN: eCancerCare(Bladder) and the EMR were used to retrieve data and produce clinical reports. Twelve participants (four attending staff, four fellows, and four residents) used either eCancerCare(Bladder) or the EMR in two clinical scenarios simulating cystoscopy surveillance visits for bladder cancer follow-up. MEASUREMENTS: Time to retrieve and quality of review of the patient history; time to produce and completeness of a cystoscopy report. Finally, participants provided a global assessment of their computer literacy, familiarity with the two systems, and system preference. RESULTS: eCancerCare(Bladder) was faster for data retrieval (scenario 1: 146 s vs 245 s, p=0.019; scenario 2: 306 vs 415 s, NS), but non-significantly slower to generate a clinical report. The quality of the report was better in the eCancerCare(Bladder) system (scenario 1: p<0.001; scenario 2: p=0.11). User satisfaction was higher with the eCancerCare(Bladder) system, and 11/12 participants preferred to use this system. LIMITATIONS: The small sample size affected the power of our study to detect differences. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a specific data management tool does not appear to significantly reduce user time, but the results suggest improvement in the level of care and documentation and preference by users. Also, the use of simulated scenarios in a laboratory setting appears to be a valid method for comparing the usability of clinical software.
机译:目的:比较在膀胱癌患者管理中使用结构化报告软件和标准电子病历(EMR)的情况。还评估了使用人为因素实验室来研究使用模拟临床情况进行疾病管理的情况。设计:使用eCancerCare(Bladder)和EMR检索数据并产生临床报告。十二名参与者(四名参会人员,四名研究员和四名居民)在两种临床情况下使用eCancerCare(膀胱)或EMR模拟了膀胱癌随访的膀胱镜检查。测量:检索时间和患者病史检查的质量;制作膀胱镜检查报告的时间和完整性。最后,参与者对他们的计算机素养,对两个系统的熟悉程度以及系统偏好进行了全面评估。结果:eCancerCare(Bladder)的数据检索速度更快(方案1:146 s对245 s,p = 0.019;方案2:306对415 s,NS),但生成临床报告的速度却慢得多。在eCancerCare(Bladder)系统中,报告的质量更好(方案1:p <0.001;方案2:p = 0.11)。使用eCancerCare(Bladder)系统的用户满意度更高,并且11/12的参与者更喜欢使用此系统。局限性:小样本量影响了我们研究发现差异的能力。结论:使用特定的数据管理工具似乎并未显着减少用户时间,但结果表明,护理和文档水平以及用户的偏爱程度有所提高。同样,在实验室环境中使用模拟方案似乎是比较临床软件可用性的有效方法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号