PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15460698

Guideline based structured documentation: the final goal?

Thomas Bürkle·Thomas Ganslandt·Dirk Tübergen·Josef Menzel·Torsten Kucharzik·Klaus Neumann·Stefan Schlüter·Marcel Müller·Ursula Veltmann·Hans-Ulrich Prokosch
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Structured documentation of medical procedures facilitates information retrieval for research and therapy and may help to improve patient care. Most medical documents until today however consist mainly of unstructured narrative text. Here we present an application for endoscopy which is not only fully integrated into a comprehensive clinical information system, but which also supports various degrees of structuring examination reports. The application is used routinely in a German University hospital since summer 2000. We present the first unstructured version which permits storage of a free text report together with selected examination images. The next step added improved structure to the document using a catalogue of index terms. The practical advantages of selective patient retrieval are described. Today we use a version which supports fully structured, guideline based documentation of endoscopy reports in order to automatically generate essential classification codes and the narrative examination report All versions have advantages and disadvantages and we conclude that guideline based documentation may not be suitable for all endoscopy cases.

Explore related subjects

DocumentationEndoscopyGermanyGuidelines as TopicHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedQuality of Health CareJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Thomas Bürkle, Thomas Ganslandt, Dirk Tübergen, Josef Menzel, Torsten Kucharzik, Klaus Neumann, Stefan Schlüter, Marcel Müller, Ursula Veltmann, Hans-Ulrich Prokosch. 2002. Guideline based structured documentation: the final goal?. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15460698/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2005

The impact of electronic health records on time efficiency of physicians and nurses: a systematic review.

A systematic review of the literature was performed to examine the impact of electronic health records (EHRs) on documentation time of physicians and nurses and to identify factors that may explain efficiency differences across studies. In total, 23 papers met our inclusion criteria; five were randomized controlled trials, six were posttest control studies, and 12 were one-group pretest-posttest designs. Most studies (58%) collected data using a time and motion methodology in comparison to work sampling (33%) and self-report/survey methods (8%). A weighted average approach was used to combine results from the studies. The use of bedside terminals and central station desktops saved nurses, respectively, 24.5% and 23.5% of their overall time spent documenting during a shift. Using bedside or point-of-care systems increased documentation time of physicians by 17.5%. In comparison, the use of central station desktops for computerized provider order entry (CPOE) was found to be inefficient, increasing the work time from 98.1% to 328.6% of physician's time per working shift (weighted average of CPOE-oriented studies, 238.4%). Studies that conducted their evaluation process relatively soon after implementation of the EHR tended to demonstrate a reduction in documentation time in comparison to the increases observed with those that had a longer time period between implementation and the evaluation process. This review highlighted that a goal of decreased documentation time in an EHR project is not likely to be realized. It also identified how the selection of bedside or central station desktop EHRs may influence documentation time for the two main user groups, physicians and nurses.

Documentation↗
PubMed2005

Interrater reliability: completing the methods description in medical records review studies.

In medical records review studies, information on the interrater reliability (IRR) of the data is seldom reported. This study assesses the IRR of data collected for a complex medical records review study. Elements selected for determining IRR included "demographic" data that require copying explicit information (e.g., gender, birth date), "free-text" data that require identifying and copying (e.g., chief complaints and diagnoses), and data that require abstractor judgment in determining what to record (e.g., whether heart disease was considered). Rates of agreement were assessed by the greatest number of answers (one to all n) that were the same. The IRR scores improved over time. At 1 month, the reliability for demographic data elements was very good, for free-text data elements was good, but for data elements requiring abstractor judgment was unacceptable (only 3.4 of six answers agreed, on average). All assessments after 6 months showed very good to excellent IRR. This study demonstrates that IRR can be evaluated and summarized, providing important information to the study investigators and to the consumer for assessing the reliability of the data and therefore the validity of the study results and conclusions. IRR information should be required for all large medical records studies.

Documentation↗