Marian Anil A, Bayman Emine O, Gillett Anita, Hadder Brent, Todd Michael M
Department of Anesthesia, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, 200 Hawkins Drive, Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA.
Department of Biostatistics, University of Iowa College of Public Heath, Iowa City, USA.
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016 Mar 2;16:29. doi: 10.1186/s12911-016-0267-6.
The American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status classification (ASA PS) of surgical patients is a standard element of the preoperative assessment. In early 2013, the Department of Anesthesia was notified that the distribution of ASA PS scores for sampled patients at the University of Iowa had recently begun to deviate from national comparison data. This change appeared to coincide with the transition from paper records to a new electronic Anesthesia Information Management System (AIMS). We hypothesized that the design of the AIMS was unintentionally influencing how providers assigned ASA PS values.
Primary analyses were based on 12-month blocks of data from paper records and AIMS. For the purpose of analysis, ASA PS was dichotomized to ASA PS 1 and 2 vs. ASA PS >2. To ensure that changes in ASA PS were not due to "real" changes in our patient mix, we examined other relevant covariates (e.g. age, weight, case distribution across surgical services, emergency vs. elective surgeries etc.).
There was a 6.1 % (95 % CI: 5.1-7.1 %) absolute increase in the fraction of ASA PS 1&2 classifications after the transition from paper (54.9 %) to AIMS (61.0 %); p < 0.001. The AIMS was then modified to make ASA PS entry clearer (e.g. clearly highlighting ASA PS on the main anesthesia record). Following the modifications, the AS PS 1&2 fraction decreased by 7.7 % (95 % CI: 6.78-8.76 %) compared to the initial AIMS records (from 61.0 to 53.3 %); p < 0.001. There were no significant or meaningful differences in basic patient characteristics and case distribution during this time.
The transition from paper to electronic AIMS resulted in an unintended but significant shift in recorded ASA PS scores. Subsequent design changes within the AIMS resulted in resetting of the ASA PS distributions to previous values. These observations highlight the importance of how user interface and cognitive demands introduced by a computational system can impact the recording of important clinical data in the medical record.
美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)对手术患者的身体状况分类是术前评估的一个标准要素。2013年初,麻醉科接到通知,爱荷华大学抽样患者的ASA身体状况评分(ASA PS)分布最近开始偏离全国比较数据。这一变化似乎与从纸质记录过渡到新的电子麻醉信息管理系统(AIMS)相吻合。我们推测,AIMS的设计无意中影响了医护人员对ASA PS值的赋值方式。
主要分析基于来自纸质记录和AIMS的12个月数据块。为了进行分析,将ASA PS分为ASA PS 1和2与ASA PS>2。为确保ASA PS的变化不是由于我们患者组合的“实际”变化,我们检查了其他相关协变量(如年龄、体重、各外科手术服务的病例分布、急诊与择期手术等)。
从纸质记录(54.9%)过渡到AIMS(61.0%)后,ASA PS 1和2分类的比例绝对增加了6.1%(95%CI:5.1-7.1%);p<0.001。随后对AIMS进行了修改,以使ASA PS录入更清晰(如在主要麻醉记录上清楚地突出显示ASA PS)。修改后,与最初的AIMS记录相比,ASA PS 1和2的比例下降了7.7%(95%CI:6.78-8.76%)(从61.0%降至53.3%);p<0.001。在此期间,患者基本特征和病例分布没有显著或有意义的差异。
从纸质记录过渡到电子AIMS导致记录的ASA PS评分出现意外但显著的变化。AIMS随后的设计更改导致ASA PS分布重置为先前的值。这些观察结果凸显了计算系统引入的用户界面和认知需求如何影响病历中重要临床数据记录的重要性。