Comparison of Handheld Computer-Assisted and Conventional Paper Chart Documentation of Medical Records: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery

Volumn 86, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 553-560

  Stengel, Dirk ^a   Bauwens, Kai ^a   Walter, Martin ^b   Köpfer, Thilo ^b   Ekkernkamp, Axel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GREIFSWALD   (Germany)

^b Unfallkrankenh Berlin Trauma Center   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOCUMENTATION; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD; MICROCOMPUTER; ORTHOPEDICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TEACHING HOSPITAL;

EID: 1442331598     PISSN: 00219355     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200403000-00014     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Kugler C, Freytag S, Stillger R, Bauer P, Ferbert A. [Australian Refined Diagnosis Related Groups. Formal and Inherent problems of grouping with the example of stroke care]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2000;125:1554-9. German.
2. Larkin M. Can handheld computers improve the quality of care? Lancet. 2001;358:1438.
3. Powsner SM, Wyatt JC, Wright P. Opportunities for and challenges of computerisation. Lancet. 1998;352:1617-22.
4. German Institute of Medical Documentation and Information (DIMDI). Download center OPS-301. www.dimdi.de/dynamic/en/klassi/download/ops301/index.html.
5. Matherlee K. From diagnosis to payment: the dynamics of coding systems for hospital, physician, and other health services. NHPF Background Paper. 2002; Jan 25. www.nhpf.org/pubs/pubs.htm#2002.
6. American Medical Association. CPT® background and categories of CPT® codes. www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/3866-3846.html.
7. Newcombe RG. Interval estimation for the difference between independent proportions: comparison of eleven methods. Stat Med. 1998;17:873-90. Erratum in: Stat Med. 1999;18:1293.
8. Newcombe RG. Interval estimation for the difference between independent proportions: comparison of eleven methods. Stat Med. 1998;17:873-90. Erratum in: Stat Med. 1999;18:1293.
9. Tandberg D. Improved confidence intervals for the difference between two proportions and number needed to treat (NNT). 1999. www.cebm.net/downlaoads/diff2propci46.xls.
10. American Society of Anesthesiologists. ASA Physical Status Classification System. www.asahq.org/clinical/physicalstatus.htm.
11. Porzsolt F, Birkner B, von Bültzingslöwen F, Barczok M, Szenthe M, Gonnermann C, Paschen B. [The importance of complete documentation for assessing health-care services. An example based on the cost of treatment for lung cancer]. Gesundh okon Qual manag. 2001;6:118-23. German.
12. Mechanic D, McAlpine DD, Rosenthal M. Are patients' office visits with physicians getting shorter? N Engl J Med. 2001;344:198-204.
13. Lundy MS. The computer-based patient record, managed care and the fate of clinical outcomes research. Florida Family Physician. 1996;46. medinfo.ufl.edu/omi/docs/ffp96/managed.html.
14. Thiru K, Hassey A, Sunivan F. Systematic review of scope and quality of electronic patient record data in primary care. BMJ. 2003;326:1070.
15. Institute of Medicine (US). Committee on Improving the Patient Record. The computer-based patient record: an essential technology for health care. Rev ed. Dick RS, Steen EB, Detmer DE, editors. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1997. p 45-51.
16. Okamoto C. Legal medical record redefinition in a multimedia environment. J AHIMA. 1998;69:70-2, 74, 76.
17. Iezzoni LI, Ayanian JZ, Bates DW, Burstin HR. Paying more fairly for Medicare capitated care. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:1933-8.
18. Palmer G, Reld B. Evaluation of the performance of diagnosis-related groups and similar casemix systems: methodological issues. Health Serv Manage Res. 2001;14:71-81.
19. Reid B, Palmer G, Alsbett C. Under-coding in Australia limits the performance of DRG groupers. Health Inf Manag. 1999-2000;29:113-7.
20. Liu Y, Phillips M, Codde J. Factors influencing patients' length of stay. Aust Health Rev. 2001;24:63-70.
21. Arizona Health Sciences Library. Health care journal articles. The PDA bibliography: professional and patient use of palm tops, PDAs, and hand helds. educ.ahsl.arizona.edu/pda/art.htm.
22. Saleh KJ, Radosevich DM, Kassim RA, Moussa M, Dykes D, Bottolfson H, Gioe TJ, Robinson H. Comparison of commonly used orthopaedic outcome measures using palm-top computers and paper surveys. J Orthop Res. 2002;20:1146-51.
23. Walle U, Sehouli J, Stengel D, Klapp C, Koensgen D, Lichtenegger W, Porzsolt F. Development of a symptom-check-list for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Results from a phase I and II clinical trial [ASCO Abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2001;20:2531.
24. Bird SB, Zarum RS, Renzi FP. Emergency medicine resident patient care documentation using a hand-held computerized device. Acad Emerg Med. 2001;8:1200-3.
25. Dilion TW, McDowell D, Salimian F, Conklin D. Perceived ease of use and usefulness of bedside-computer systems. Comput Nurs. 1998;16:151-6.
26. Butler MA, Bender AD. Intensive care unit bedside documentation systems. Realizing cost savings and quality improvements. Comput Nurs. 1999;17:32-40.