Australian Critical Care
Volume 23, Issue 3 , Pages 130-140, August 2010

What can paper-based clinical information systems tell us about the design of computerized clinical information systems (CIS) in the ICU?

  • A. Miller

      Affiliations

    • Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +1 615 343 1696.
  • ,
  • D. Pilcher

      Affiliations

    • Intensive Care Unit, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
  • ,
  • N. Mercaldo

      Affiliations

    • Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States
  • ,
  • T. Leong

      Affiliations

    • Intensive Care Unit, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
  • ,
  • C. Scheinkestel

      Affiliations

    • Intensive Care Unit, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
  • ,
  • J. Schildcrout

      Affiliations

    • Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States

Received 29 July 2009; received in revised form 16 December 2009; accepted 5 February 2010. published online 26 March 2010.

Summary 

Background

Screen designs in computerized clinical information systems (CIS) have been modeled on their paper predecessors. However, limited understanding about how paper forms support clinical work means that we risk repeating old mistakes and creating new opportunities for error and inefficiency as illustrated by problems associated with computerized provider order entry systems.

Purpose

This study was designed to elucidate principles underlying a successful ICU paper-based CIS. The research was guided by two exploratory hypotheses: (1) paper-based artefacts (charts, notes, equipment, order forms) are used differently by nurses, doctors and other healthcare professionals in different (formal and informal) conversation contexts and (2) different artefacts support different decision processes that are distributed across role-based conversations.

Method

All conversations undertaken at the bedsides of five patients were recorded with any supporting artefacts for five days per patient. Data was coded according to conversational role-holders, clinical decision process, conversational context and artefacts. 2133 data points were analyzed using Poisson logistic regression analyses.

Results

Results show significant interactions between artefacts used during different professional conversations in different contexts (χ2(df=16)=55.8, p<0.0001). The interaction between artefacts used during different professional conversations for different clinical decision processes was not statistically significant although all two-way interactions were statistically significant.

Conclusions

Paper-based CIS have evolved to support complex interdisciplinary decision processes. The translation of two design principles – support interdisciplinary perspectives and integrate decision processes – from paper to computerized CIS may minimize the risks associated with computerization.

Keywords: Clinical information systems design, Computerized provider order entry, Clinical decision processes, Adverse events, Error

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S1036-7314(10)00034-2

doi:10.1016/j.aucc.2010.02.001

Australian Critical Care
Volume 23, Issue 3 , Pages 130-140, August 2010