The reliability of manual reporting of clinical events in an anesthesia information management system (AIMS)

Allan F. Simpao, Eric Y. Pruitt, Scott D. Cook-Sather, Harshad G. Gurnaney, Mohamed A. Rehman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Manual incident reports significantly under-report adverse clinical events when compared with automated recordings of intraoperative data. Our goal was to determine the reliability of AIMS and CQI reports of adverse clinical events that had been witnessed and recorded by research assistants. The AIMS and CQI records of 995 patients aged 2-12 years were analyzed to determine if anesthesia providers had properly documented the emesis events that were observed and recorded by research assistants who were present in the operating room at the time of induction. Research assistants recorded eight cases of emesis during induction that were confirmed with the attending anesthesiologist at the time of induction. AIMS yielded a sensitivity of 38 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 8.5-75.5 %), while the sensitivity of CQI reporting was 13 % (95 % CI 0.3-52.7 %). The low sensitivities of the AIMS and CQI reports suggest that user-reported AIMS and CQI data do not reliably include significant clinical events.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)437-439
Number of pages3
JournalJournal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
Volume26
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2012
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Anesthesia information management systems
  • Continuous quality improvement
  • Critical event documentation
  • Manual reporting

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Informatics
  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'The reliability of manual reporting of clinical events in an anesthesia information management system (AIMS)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this