Point-of-care clinical documentation: Assessment of a bladder cancer informatics tool (ecancercare bladder): A randomized controlled study of efficacy, efficiency and user friendliness compared with standard electronic medical records

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Volumn 18, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 835-841

  Bostrom, Peter J ^a   Toren, Paul J ^a   Xi, Hao ^b   Chow, Raymond ^b   Truong, Tran ^b   Liu, Justin ^b   Lane, Kelly ^b   Legere, Laura ^a   Chagpar, Anjum ^b   Zlotta, Alexandre R ^a   Finelli, Antonio ^a   Fleshner, Neil E ^a   Grober, Ethan D ^c   Jewett, Michael A S ^a  

^a PRINCESS MARGARET HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK   (Canada)

^c MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BLADDER CANCER; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYSTOSCOPY; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; MEDICAL HISTORY; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SIMULATION;

ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; DOCUMENTATION; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; HUMANS; INFORMATION MANAGEMENT; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; POINT-OF-CARE SYSTEMS; QUESTIONNAIRES; SOFTWARE; TIME FACTORS; URINARY BLADDER NEOPLASMS; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 81055126766     PISSN: 10675027     EISSN: 1527974X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000221     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Ferlay J, Bray F, Pisani P, et al. GLOBOCAN 2002: Cancer incidence, Mortality and Prevalence Worldwide. IARC Cancer base No5, version 1.0. International Agency for Research on cancer. http://www-dep.iarc.fr.
2. Pasin E, Josephson D, Mitra A, et al. Superficial bladder cancer: an update on etiology, molecular development, classification, and natural history. Rev Urol 2008;10:31-43.
3. Stenzl A, Hennenlotter J, Schilling D. Can we still afford bladder cancer? Curr Opin Urol 2008;18:488-92.
4. Nygren E, Wyatt J, Wright P. Helping clinicians to find data and avoid delays. Lancet 1998;352:1462-6.
5. Novitsky Y, Sing R, Kercher K, et al. Prospective, blinded evaluation of accuracy of operative reports dictated by surgical residents. Am Surg 2005;71:627-31; discussion 31-2.
6. Weir C, Hurdle J, Felgar M, et al. Direct text entry in electronic progress notes. An evaluation of input errors. Methods Inf Med 2003;42:61-7.
7. Gill A, Johns A, Eckstein R, et al. Synoptic reporting improves histopathological assessment of pancreatic resection specimens. Pathology 2009;41:161-7.
8. Haydu L, Holt P, Karim R, et al. Quality of histopathological reporting on melanoma and influence of use of a synoptic template. Histopathology 2010;56:768-74.
9. Kang H, Devine L, Piccoli A, et al. Usefulness of a synoptic data tool for reporting of head and neck neoplasms based on the College of American Pathologists cancer checklists. Am J Clin Pathol 2009;132:521-30.
10. Edhemovic I, Temple W, de Gara C, et al. The computer synoptic operative reportea leap forward in the science of surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 2004;11:941-7.
11. Brown M, Quiñonez L, Schaff H. A pilot study of electronic cardiovascular operative notes: qualitative assessment and challenges in implementation. J Am Coll Surg 2010;210:178-84.
12. Temple W, Francis W, Tamano E, et al. Synoptic surgical reporting for breast cancer surgery: an innovation in knowledge translation. Am J Surg 2010;199:770-5.
13. Chambers A, Pasieka J, Temple W. Improvement in the accuracy of reporting key prognostic and anatomic findings during thyroidectomy by using a novel Web-based synoptic operative reporting system. Surgery 2009;146:1090-8.
14. Shekelle P, Morton S, Keeler E. Costs and benefits of health information technology. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) 2006;(132):1-71.
15. Prokosch H, Ganslandt T. Perspectives for medical informatics. Reusing the electronic medical record for clinical research. Methods Inf Med 2009;48:38-44.
16. Mack L, Bathe O, Hebert M, et al. Opening the black box of cancer surgery quality: WebSMR and the Alberta experience. J Surg Oncol 2009;99:525-30.
17. Saleem JJ, Russ AL, Sanderson P, et al. Current challenges and opportunities for better integration of human factors research with development of clinical information systems. Yearb Med Inform 2009:48-58.
18. Chan W. Increasing the success of physician order entry through human factors engineering. J Healthc Inf Manag. 2002;16:71-9.
19. Rogers ML, Patterson E, Chapman R, et al. Usability testing and the relation of clinical information systems to patient safety. In: Henriksen K. Advances in Patient Safety: From Research to Implementation, Volume 2: Concepts and Methodology. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), 2005.
20. Rodriguez N, Murillo V, Borges J, et al. A usability study of physicians interaction with a paper-based patient record system and a graphical-based electronic patient record system. Proc AMIA Symp 2002:667-71.
21. Atkinson J, Zeller G, Shah C. Electronic patient records for dental school clinics: more than paperless systems. J Dent Educ 2002;66:634-42.
22. Weir C, Nebeker J. Critical issues in an electronic documentation system. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2007:786-90.
23. Lapointe L, Rivard S. Getting physicians to accept new information technology: insights from case studies. CMAJ 2006;174:1573-8.
24. Berg M. Implementing information systems in health care organizations: myths and challenges. Int J Med Inform 2001;64:143-56.
25. Heathfield HA, Wyatt J. Philosphies for the design and development of clinical decision-support systems. Methods Inform Med 1993;32:1-8.
26. Aarts J, Doorewaard H, Berg M. Understanding implementation: the case of a computerized phycisian order entry system in a large Dutch university medical center. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2004;11:207-16.
27. Rosenbloom S, Miller R, Johnson K, et al. Interface terminologies: facilitating direct entry of clinical data into electronic health record systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006;13:277-88.
28. Lapointe L, Rivard S. Clinical information systems: understanding and preventing their premature demise. Healthc Q 2005;8:92-100.
29. Kanter E. Mastering change. In: Chawla S, Renesch J, eds. Learning OrganizationsdDeveloping Cultures for Tomorrow's Workplace. Portland, Oregon, 1994:71-83.
30. Deloney WH, McLean ER. Information system success: the quest for the dependent variable. Inform Syst Res 1992;3:60-95.
31. Apkon M, Singhaviranon P. Impact of an electronic information system on physician workflow and data collection in the intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med 2001;27:122-30.