• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

瑞士电子健康记录的效率和安全性-对 2 家医院商业系统的比较分析。

Efficiency and Safety of Electronic Health Records in Switzerland-A Comparative Analysis of 2 Commercial Systems in Hospitals.

机构信息

From the Swiss Patient Safety Foundation, Zurich.

出版信息

J Patient Saf. 2022 Sep 1;18(6):645-651. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000001009. Epub 2022 May 4.

DOI:10.1097/PTS.0000000000001009
PMID:35985044
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Differences in efficiency and safety between 2 electronic health record (systems A and B) in Swiss hospitals were investigated.

METHODS

In a scenario-based usability test under experimental conditions, a total of 100 physicians at 4 hospitals were asked to complete typical routine tasks, like medication or imaging orders. Differences in number of mouse clicks and time-on-task as indicators of efficiency and error type, error count, and rate as indicators of patient safety between hospital sites were analyzed. Time-on-task and clicks were correlated with error count.

RESULTS

There were differences in efficiency and safety between hospitals. Overall, physicians working with system B required less clicks (A: 511, B: 442, P = 0.001) and time (A: 2055 seconds, B: 1713 seconds, P = 0.055) and made fewer errors (A: 40%, B: 27%, P < 0.001). No participant completed all tasks correctly. The most frequent error in medication and radiology ordering was a wrong dose and a wrong level, respectively. Time errors were particularly prevalent in laboratory orders. Higher error counts coincided with longer time-on-task (r = 0.50, P < 0.001) and more clicks (r = 0.47, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The variations in clicks, time, and errors are likely due to naive functionality and design of the systems and differences in their implementation. The high error rates coincide with inefficiency and jeopardize patient safety and produce economic costs and burden on physicians. The results raise usability concerns with potential for severe patient harm. A deeper understanding of differences as well as regulative guidelines and policy making are needed.

摘要

目的

研究瑞士医院中 2 种电子病历(系统 A 和 B)的效率和安全性差异。

方法

在基于场景的实验条件下的可用性测试中,共有来自 4 家医院的 100 名医生被要求完成典型的常规任务,如药物或影像订单。分析了医院之间在任务完成时间、鼠标点击次数、效率差异以及错误类型、错误数量和错误率、患者安全性差异。任务完成时间和点击次数与错误数量相关。

结果

医院之间存在效率和安全性差异。总体而言,使用系统 B 的医生需要的点击次数(A:511,B:442,P = 0.001)和时间(A:2055 秒,B:1713 秒,P = 0.055)更少,错误更少(A:40%,B:27%,P < 0.001)。没有参与者正确完成所有任务。药物和放射学订单中最常见的错误分别是剂量和水平错误。实验室订单中时间错误尤其普遍。错误计数越高,任务完成时间越长(r = 0.50,P < 0.001),点击次数越多(r = 0.47,P < 0.001)。

结论

点击次数、时间和错误的变化可能是由于系统的原始功能和设计以及它们的实施差异造成的。高错误率与效率低下有关,危及患者安全,并产生经济成本和医生负担。结果引起了对潜在严重患者伤害的可用性问题的关注。需要更深入地了解差异以及监管准则和政策制定。

相似文献

1
Efficiency and Safety of Electronic Health Records in Switzerland-A Comparative Analysis of 2 Commercial Systems in Hospitals.瑞士电子健康记录的效率和安全性-对 2 家医院商业系统的比较分析。
J Patient Saf. 2022 Sep 1;18(6):645-651. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000001009. Epub 2022 May 4.
2
A usability and safety analysis of electronic health records: a multi-center study.电子健康记录的可用性和安全性分析:一项多中心研究。
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018 Sep 1;25(9):1197-1201. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocy088.
3
Medication Safety in Two Intensive Care Units of a Community Teaching Hospital After Electronic Health Record Implementation: Sociotechnical and Human Factors Engineering Considerations.电子病历实施后某社区教学医院 2 个重症监护病房的用药安全:社会技术和人为因素工程学方面的考虑。
J Patient Saf. 2021 Aug 1;17(5):e429-e439. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000358.
4
How Does Learnability of Primary Care Resident Physicians Increase After Seven Months of Using an Electronic Health Record? A Longitudinal Study.使用电子健康记录七个月后,基层医疗住院医师的可学习性如何提高?一项纵向研究。
JMIR Hum Factors. 2016 Feb 15;3(1):e9. doi: 10.2196/humanfactors.4601.
5
Association of Electronic Health Record Use With Physician Fatigue and Efficiency.电子病历使用与医生疲劳和效率的关系。
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Jun 1;3(6):e207385. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.7385.
6
7
Usability problems do not heal by themselves: National survey on physicians' experiences with EHRs in Finland.可用性问题不会自行解决:芬兰医生使用电子健康记录的全国性调查。
Int J Med Inform. 2017 Jan;97:266-281. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.10.010. Epub 2016 Oct 17.
8
Impact of an electronic health record transition on chemotherapy error reporting.电子健康记录转换对化疗差错报告的影响
J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2020 Jun;26(4):787-793. doi: 10.1177/1078155219870590. Epub 2019 Sep 4.
9
Comparison of a Prototype for Indications-Based Prescribing With 2 Commercial Prescribing Systems.基于适应证的处方原型与 2 种商业处方系统的比较。
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Mar 1;2(3):e191514. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.1514.
10
Electronic health record innovations: Helping physicians - One less click at a time.电子健康记录创新:帮助医生——一次少点击一次。
Health Inf Manag. 2017 Sep;46(3):140-144. doi: 10.1177/1833358316689481. Epub 2017 Jan 19.

引用本文的文献

1
Public perceptions of digitalisation and patient safety: a cross-sectional survey in Germany.公众对数字化与患者安全的认知:德国的一项横断面调查。
BMJ Open. 2025 Sep 8;15(9):e100516. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2025-100516.
2
EMR usability and patient safety: a national survey of physicians.电子病历的可用性与患者安全:一项针对医生的全国性调查
NPJ Digit Med. 2025 May 15;8(1):282. doi: 10.1038/s41746-025-01657-4.
3
Safety and usability of oncology information systems - a systematic review.肿瘤学信息系统的安全性与可用性——一项系统综述
Front Oncol. 2024 Nov 28;14:1231757. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1231757. eCollection 2024.
4
Risk factors for wrong-patient medication orders in the emergency department.急诊科错误患者用药医嘱的风险因素。
JAMIA Open. 2024 Oct 25;7(4):ooae103. doi: 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooae103. eCollection 2024 Dec.
5
Impact of a clinical decision support system on paediatric drug dose prescribing: a randomised within-subject simulation trial.临床决策支持系统对儿科药物剂量处方的影响:一项随机自身对照模拟试验。
BMJ Paediatr Open. 2023 Jan;7(1). doi: 10.1136/bmjpo-2022-001726.