Information Technologies and Patient Safety

Surgical Clinics of North America

Volumn 92, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 79-87

  Ellner, Scott J ^a,b   Joyner, Paul W ^c  

^a SAINT FRANCIS HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT HEALTH CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Electronic; Information; Records; Surgery; Technology

Indexed keywords

DATA COLLECTION METHOD; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT MONITORING; PATIENT SAFETY; PERIOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOFREQUENCY IDENTIFICATION; REVIEW;

AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; FOREIGN BODIES; HUMANS; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL ERRORS; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; PATIENT CARE TEAM; PATIENT IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS; PATIENT SAFETY; PERIOPERATIVE CARE; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; SURGICAL SPONGES;

EID: 84856198459     PISSN: 00396109     EISSN: 15583171     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.suc.2011.11.002     Document Type: Review

References (50)

1. Melton G. Biomedical and health informatics for surgery. Adv Surg 2010, 44:117-130.
2. Evans D., Nichol W., Perlin J. Effect of the implementation of an enterprise-wide electronic health record on productivity in the Veterans Health Administration. Health Econ Policy Law 2006, 1(Pt 2):163-169.
3. Doebbeling B.N., Vaughn T.E., McCoy K.D., et al. Informatics implementation in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) healthcare system to improve quality of care. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2006, 204-208.
4. Fleurant M., Kell R., Love J., et al. Massachusetts e-health project increased physicians' ability to use registries, and signals progress toward better care. Health Aff (Millwood) 2011, 30(7):1256-1264.
5. El-Kareh R., Gandhi T.K., Poon E.G., et al. Trends in primary care clinician perceptions of a new electronic health record. JGen Intern Med 2009, 24(4):464-468.
6. Blumenthal D. Stimulating the adoption of health information technology. NEngl J Med 2009, 360(15):1477-1479.
7. Blumenthal D., Tavenner M. The " meaningful use" regulation for electronic health records. NEngl J Med 2010, 363(6):501-504.
8. Blumenthal D. Launching HITECH. NEngl J Med 2010, 362(5):382-385.
9. Jha A.K., DesRoches C.M., Campbell E.G., et al. Use of electronic health records in U.S. hospitals. NEngl J Med 2009, 360(16):1628-1638.
10. Buntin M.B., Burke M.F., Hoaglin M.C., et al. The benefits of health information technology: a review of the recent literature shows predominantly positive results. Health Aff (Millwood) 2011, 30(3):464-471.
11. Bates D.W., Gawande A.A. Improving safety with information technology. NEngl J Med 2003, 348(25):2526-2534.
12. Bates D.W., Leape L.L., Cullen D.J., et al. Effect of computerized physician order entry and a team intervention on prevention of serious medication errors. JAMA 1998, 280(15):1311-1316.
13. Poon E.G., Keohane C.A., Yoon C.S., et al. Effect of bar-code technology on the safety of medication administration. NEngl J Med 2010, 362(18):1698-1707.
14. Wayne J.D., Tyagi R., Reinhardt G., et al. Simple standardized patient handoff system that increases accuracy and completeness. JSurg Educ 2008, 65(6):476-485.
15. Randa K. Using IT to drive operational efficiency in the OR. Healthc Financ Manage 2010, 64(12):90-92. 94.
16. Dalal A.K., Poon E.G., Karson A.S., et al. Lessons learned from implementation of a computerized application for pending tests at hospital discharge. JHosp Med 2011, 6(1):16-21.
17. Greenberg C.C., Regenbogen S.E., Lipsitz S.R., et al. The frequency and significance of discrepancies in the surgical count. Ann Surg 2008, 248(2):337-341.
18. Steelman V.M. Sensitivity of detection of radiofrequency surgical sponges: a prospective, cross-over study. Am J Surg 2011, 201(2):233-237.
19. Beach M.J., Sions J.A. Surviving OR computerization. AORN J 2011, 93(2):226-241.
20. Mathias J.M. Automation ends preop paper chase. OR Manager 2009, 25(6):11-12. 14.
21. Seagull F.J., Moses G.R., Park A.E. Pillars of a smart, safe operating room. Advances in patient safety: new directions and alternative approaches (vol. 3: Performance and tools) 2008, 1-13. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), Rockville (MD). K. Henriksen, J.B. Battles, M.A. Keyes (Eds.).
22. Piterman L., Koritsas S. Part I. General practitioner-specialist relationship. Intern Med J 2005, 35(7):430-434.
23. Gandhi T.K., Keating N.L., Ditmore M., et al. Improving referral communication using a referral tool within an electronic medical record. Advances in patient safety: new directions and alternative approaches (vol. 3: Performance and tools) 2008, 1-12. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), Rockville (MD). K. Henriksen, J.B. Battles, M.A. Keyes (Eds.).
24. Makary M.A., Holzmueller C.G., Thompson D., et al. Operating room briefings: working on the same page. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2006, 32(6):351-355.
25. Lingard L., Regehr G., Orser B., et al. Evaluation of a preoperative checklist and team briefing among surgeons, nurses, and anesthesiologists to reduce failures in communication. Arch Surg 2008, 143(1):12-17. [discussion: 18].
26. Thomas J.W., Holloway J.J. Investigating early readmission as an indicator for quality of care studies. Med Care 1991, 29(4):377-394.
27. Cummins R.O., Smith R.W., Inui T.S. Communication failure in primary care. Failure of consultants to provide follow-up information. JAMA 1980, 243(16):1650-1652.
28. Roy C.L., Poon E.G., Karson A.S., et al. Patient safety concerns arising from test results that return after hospital discharge. Ann Intern Med 2005, 143(2):121-128.
29. Shaw R.J., Ferranti J. Patient-provider internet portals-patient outcomes and use. Comput Inform Nurs 2011, [Epub ahead of print].
30. Ammenwerth E., Schnell-Inderst P., Hoerbst A. Patient empowerment by electronic health records: first results of a systematic review on the benefit of patient portals. Stud Health Technol Inform 2011, 165:63-67.
31. Osborn C.Y., Mayberry L.S., Mulvaney S.A., et al. Patient web portals to improve diabetes outcomes: a systematic review. Curr Diab Rep 2010, 10(6):422-435.
32. Holbrook A., Thabane L., Keshavjee K., et al. Individualized electronic decision support and reminders to improve diabetes care in the community: COMPETE II randomized trial. CMAJ 2009, 181(1-2):37-44.
33. Available at: Accessed July 15, 2011. http://www.cms.gov/EEHRIncentivePrograms/.
34. Jha A.K., DesRoches C.M., Kralovec P.D., et al. Aprogress report on electronic health records in U.S. hospitals. Health Aff (Millwood) 2010, 29(10):1951-1957.
35. Kohn L.T., Corrigan J.M., Donaldson M.S. To err is human: building a safer health system 2000, National Academy Press, Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC.
36. Gawande A.A., Studdert D.M., Orav E.J., et al. Risk factors for retained instruments and sponges after surgery. NEngl J Med 2003, 348(3):229-235.
37. Lincourt A.E., Harrell A., Cristiano J., et al. Retained foreign bodies after surgery. JSurg Res 2007, 138(2):170-174.
38. Association of Perioperative Registered Nurses (AORN) Recommended Practices Committee Recommended practices for sponge, sharps, and instrument counts. AORN J 2006, 83(2):418. 421-6, 429-33.
39. Christian C.K., Gustafson M.L., Roth E.M., et al. Aprospective study of patient safety in the operating room. Surgery 2006, 139(2):159-173.
40. Cima R.R., Kollengode A., Garnatz J., et al. Incidence and characteristics of potential and actual retained foreign object events in surgical patients. JAm Coll Surg 2008, 207(1):80-87.
41. Regenbogen S.E., Greenberg C.C., Resch S.C., et al. Prevention of retained surgical sponges: a decision-analytic model predicting relative cost-effectiveness. Surgery 2009, 145(5):527-535.
42. Poon E.G., Keohane C., Featherstone E., et al. Impact of barcode medication administration technology on how nurses spend their time on clinical care. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2006, 1065.
43. Nichols J.H., Bartholomew C., Brunton M., et al. Reducing medical errors through barcoding at the point of care. Clin Leadersh Manag Rev 2004, 18(6):328-334.
44. Landt J. Shrouds of time: the history of RFID 2001, Association for Automatic Identification and Mobility, Pittsburgh (PA).
45. Macario A., Morris D., Morris S. Initial clinical evaluation of a handheld device for detecting retained surgical gauze sponges using radiofrequency identification technology. Arch Surg 2006, 141(7):659-662.
46. Rogers A., Jones E., Oleynikov D. Radio frequency identification (RFID) applied to surgical sponges. Surg Endosc 2007, 21(7):1235-1237.
47. Mathias J.M. Preventing retained items: time to consider technology?. OR Manager 2011, 27(1):1. 18, 20-2.
48. Kranzfelder M., Schneider A., Blahusch G., et al. Feasibility of opto-electronic surgical instrument identification. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 2009, 18(5):253-258.
49. Shepherd J.P., Brickley M.R., Jones M.L. Automatic identification of surgical and orthodontic instruments. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1994, 76(Suppl 2):59-62.
50. Guerlain S., Adams R.B., Turrentine F.B., et al. Assessing team performance in the operating room: development and use of a " black-box" recorder and other tools for the intraoperative environment. JAm Coll Surg 2005, 200(1):29-37.