Ottens Jane, Baker Robert A, Newland Richard F, Mazzone Annette
Ashford Hospital, Ashford, South Australia, Australia.
J Extra Corpor Technol. 2005 Dec;37(4):355-9.
The perfusion record, whether manually recorded or computer generated, is a legal representation of the procedure. The handwritten perfusion record has been the most common method of recording events that occur during cardiopulmonary bypass. This record is of significant contrast to the integrated data management systems available that provide continuous collection of data automatically or by means of a few keystrokes. Additionally, an increasing number of monitoring devices are available to assist in the management of patients on bypass. These devices are becoming more complex and provide more data for the perfusionist to monitor and record. Most of the data from these can be downloaded automatically into online data management systems, allowing more time for the perfusionist to concentrate on the patient while simultaneously producing a more accurate record. In this prospective report, we compared 17 cases that were recorded using both manual and electronic data collection techniques. The perfusionist in charge of the case recorded the perfusion using the manual technique while a second perfusionist entered relevant events on the electronic record generated by the Stockert S3 Data Management System/Data Bahn (Munich, Germany). Analysis of the two types of perfusion records showed significant variations in the recorded information. Areas that showed the most inconsistency included measurement of the perfusion pressures, flow, blood temperatures, cardioplegia delivery details, and the recording of events, with the electronic record superior in the integrity of the data. In addition, the limitations of the electronic system were also shown by the lack of electronic gas flow data in our hardware. Our results confirm the importance of accurate methods of recording of perfusion events. The use of an automated system provides the opportunity to minimize transcription error and bias. This study highlights the limitation of spot recording of perfusion events in the overall record keeping for perfusion management.
灌注记录，无论是手动记录还是计算机生成的，都是该操作的合法记录。手写灌注记录一直是记录心肺转流期间发生事件的最常见方法。这种记录与现有的集成数据管理系统形成了显著对比，后者能够自动或通过少量按键操作持续收集数据。此外，越来越多的监测设备可用于协助管理体外循环患者。这些设备变得越来越复杂，为灌注师提供了更多需要监测和记录的数据。这些设备的大多数数据可以自动下载到在线数据管理系统中，这使得灌注师有更多时间专注于患者，同时生成更准确的记录。在这份前瞻性报告中，我们比较了17例同时使用手动和电子数据收集技术记录的病例。负责该病例的灌注师使用手动技术记录灌注情况，而另一名灌注师在由斯托克特S3数据管理系统/数据轨道（德国慕尼黑）生成的电子记录中输入相关事件。对这两种类型的灌注记录进行分析后发现，记录的信息存在显著差异。显示出最不一致的领域包括灌注压力、流量、血液温度、心脏停搏液输送细节的测量以及事件记录，电子记录在数据完整性方面更具优势。此外，我们硬件中缺乏电子气体流量数据也显示出电子系统的局限性。我们的结果证实了准确记录灌注事件方法的重要性。使用自动化系统有机会将转录错误和偏差降至最低。这项研究突出了在灌注管理的整体记录保存中对灌注事件进行即时记录的局限性。
