Adoption of anesthesia information management systems by academic departments in the United States
Adoption of anesthesia information management systems by academic departments in the United States
复制标题
DOI：
10.1213/ane.0b013e31818322d2
复制
发表时间：
2008-10-01
影响因子：
5.7
通讯作者：
Grunwald, Zvi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Halbeis, Christoph B. Egger;Epstein, Richard H.;Grunwald, Zvi
背景：信息技术已被推广为改善患者护理和结果的一种方式。而用于辅助医院服务的信息技术系统（例如，放射科、药房）被普遍部署，但据估计，麻醉信息管理系统（AIMS）仅安装在美国（US）手术室的一小部分中。在这项研究中，我们评估了通过AIMS在学术麻醉部门，并探讨了AIMS通过的动机和阻力。方法：通过电子邮件征求学会麻醉学主席和麻醉学项目主任协会的成员参加AIMS通过的在线调查。两个月后，关闭调查，另一封电子邮件被发送一个单一的问题，要求更新他们的AIMS实施status.Results：调查完全完成了48（34%）的140学会麻醉学椅子和协会的麻醉学项目主任部门调查，72（51%）提供AIMS状态信息。在这72个部门中，有20个部门安装了信息管理系统，12个部门目前正在实施，11个部门已经选定但尚未安装，18个部门计划在2008年或2009年购买信息管理系统。因此，在美国所有140个学术麻醉部门中，至少有61个（44%）致力于AIMS。这个估计的采用率是保守的，因为分子等于肯定的回答，而分母等于学术部门的总人口。在采用者中，安装AIMS的最大预期益处包括改进临床文档、改进临床研究数据收集、增强质量改进计划以及遵守监管机构的要求。医院提供资金在几乎所有的设施（90%），与共同资助的麻醉组在35%.CONCLUSIONS：至少61或44%的140个美国学术部门在这项研究中调查已经实施，正在计划收购，或目前正在寻找一个AIMS。AIMS技术的采用似乎已经在学术麻醉科达到了足够的势头，导致了根本性的变化。
BACKGROUND: Information technology has been promoted as a way to improve patient care and outcomes. Whereas information technology systems for ancillary hospital services (e.g., radiology, pharmacy) are deployed commonly, it has been estimated that anesthesia information management systems (AIMS) are only installed in a small fraction of United States (US) operating rooms. In this study, we assessed the adoption of AIMS at academic anesthesia departments and explored the motivations for and resistance to AIMS adoption.METHODS: Members of the Society of Academic Anesthesiology Chairs and the Association of Anesthesiology Program Directors were solicited by e-mail to participate in an online survey of AIMS adoption. Two months after closing the survey, another e-mail was sent with a single question asking for an update to their AIMS implementation status.RESULTS: Surveys were fully completed by 48 (34%) of the 140 Society of Academic Anesthesiology Chairs and Association of Anesthesiology Program Directors departments surveyed, with 72 (51%) providing AIMS status information. Twenty of these 72 departments have an AIMS installed, 12 are currently implementing, 11 have selected but not yet installed, and 18 are planning to purchase an AIMS in 2008 or 2009. Therefore, at least 61 (44%) of all 140 US academic anesthesia departments have committed to AIMS. This estimated adoption rate is conservative because the numerator equals the affirmative responses, whereas the denominator equals the total population of academic departments. Among adopters, the top ranked anticipated benefits from installing an AIMS included improved clinical documentation, improved data collection for clinical research, enhancement of quality improvement programs, and compliance with requirements of regulatory authorities. The hospital provided funding in almost all facilities (90%), with co-funding by the anesthesia group in 35%.CONCLUSIONS: At least 61 or 44% of the 140 US academic departments surveyed in this study have already implemented, are planning to acquire, or are currently searching for an AIMS. Adoption of AIMS technology appears to have reached sufficient momentum within academic anesthesiology departments to result in a fundamental change.