眼动追踪（ET）与传统纸质记录（CPR）：一项比较从青光眼患者记录中检索数据的准确性和速度的研究。

Eyetrack (ET) vs the conventional paper record (CPR): a study comparing the accuracy and speed of data retrieval from glaucoma patient records.

作者信息

Suleman H, Vernon S A, Ainsworth G, Bhan A, Bhargava J, Eatamadi H, Koppens J

机构信息

Department of Ophthalmology, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK.

出版信息

Eye (Lond). 2006 Jan;20(1):80-3. doi: 10.1038/sj.eye.6701813.

DOI:10.1038/sj.eye.6701813

PMID:15692611

Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare patient data retrieval between electronic patient record systems (Eyetrack) and conventional paper records (CPRs).

METHODS

A total of 20 long term glaucoma patient records held on Eyetrack were randomised into two collections with 10 CPRs and 10 Eyetrack records in each collection. The Eyetrack records of one collection were the CPRs of the other collection and vice versa. Four doctors, as two groups, were assessed on a separate collection of records. The time taken to answer 10 questions and the accuracy were assessed. Comparison was made of the answers between the two formats. A month later each group was assessed on the 10 CPRs of the other collection. An expert Eyetrack user was assessed on only the 20 Eyetrack notes. Comparison was made between the 20 CPRs the doctors were assessed on and the 20 eyetrack records.

RESULTS

In the first comparison, the mean time for all the doctors to answer the questions on a CPR was 324.4(+/-106.0) s compared to 104.8(+/-34.0) s for Eyetrack(Mann-Whitney, P<0.01). Mean accuracy for a CPR was 84.0%(+/-13.0%) compared to 98.0%(+/-4.0%) for Eyetrack(Mann-Whitney, P<0.01). Comparing the expert Eyetrack user with the CPR showed a mean time for Eyetrack of 96.6(+/-34.8) s compared with 283.7(+/-63.9) s for CPR(Mann-Whitney, P<0.0001). Mean accuracy for Eyetrack was 97.5%(+/-7.2%) compared to 82.0%(+/-8.7%) for CPRs(Mann-Whitney, P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

An improvement of 3 min 40 s per record was observed with Eyetrack. Accuracy was also improved. Similar results were also found comparing an expert Eyetrack user with CPRs.

摘要

目的

比较电子病历系统（Eyetrack）与传统纸质病历（CPR）在患者数据检索方面的差异。

方法

从Eyetrack系统中选取20份长期青光眼患者病历，随机分为两组，每组包含10份纸质病历和10份Eyetrack记录。其中一组的Eyetrack记录是另一组的纸质病历，反之亦然。将4名医生分为两组，对另一组记录进行评估。记录回答10个问题所需的时间以及回答的准确性，并比较两种格式记录的答案。一个月后，每组对另一组的10份纸质病历进行评估。仅对一名Eyetrack系统的专家用户评估20份Eyetrack记录。比较医生评估的20份纸质病历与20份Eyetrack记录。

结果

在首次比较中，所有医生回答纸质病历问题的平均时间为324.4（±106.0）秒，而回答Eyetrack记录问题的平均时间为104.8（±34.0）秒（曼-惠特尼检验，P<0.01）。纸质病历的平均准确率为84.0%（±13.0%），而Eyetrack记录的平均准确率为98.0%（±4.0%）（曼-惠特尼检验，P<0.01）。将Eyetrack系统专家用户与纸质病历进行比较，Eyetrack记录的平均用时为96.6（±34.8）秒，而纸质病历的平均用时为283.7（±63.9）秒（曼-惠特尼检验，P<0.0001）。Eyetrack记录的平均准确率为97.5%（±7.2%），而纸质病历的平均准确率为82.0%（±8.7%）（曼-惠特尼检验，P<0.0001）。