Accuracy and speed of electronic health record versus paper-based ophthalmic documentation strategies

Patrick Chan, Preeti J. Thyparampil, Michael Chiang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To compare accuracy and speed of keyboard and mouse electronic health record (EHR) documentation strategies with those of a paper documentation strategy. Design: Prospective cohort study. Methods: Three documentation strategies were developed: (1) keyboard EHR, (2) mouse EHR, and (3) paper. Ophthalmology trainees recruited for the study were presented with 5 clinical cases and documented findings using each strategy. For each case-strategy pair, findings and documentation time were recorded. Accuracy of each strategy was calculated based on sensitivity (fraction of findings in actual case that were documented by subject) and positive ratio (fraction of findings identified by subject that were present in the actual case). Results: Twenty subjects were enrolled. A total of 258 findings were identified in the 5 cases, resulting in 300 case-strategy pairs and 77 400 possible total findings documented. Sensitivity was 89.1% for the keyboard EHR, 87.2% for mouse EHR, and 88.6% for the paper strategy (no statistically significant differences). The positive ratio was 99.4% for the keyboard EHR, 98.9% for mouse EHR, and 99.9% for the paper strategy (P

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume156
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2013

Fingerprint

Electronic Health Records
Documentation
Ophthalmology
Cohort Studies
Prospective Studies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Accuracy and speed of electronic health record versus paper-based ophthalmic documentation strategies. / Chan, Patrick; Thyparampil, Preeti J.; Chiang, Michael.

In: American Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol. 156, No. 1, 07.2013.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a22a72bec79a479caef1bb598ab7b6fb,
title = "Accuracy and speed of electronic health record versus paper-based ophthalmic documentation strategies",
abstract = "Purpose: To compare accuracy and speed of keyboard and mouse electronic health record (EHR) documentation strategies with those of a paper documentation strategy. Design: Prospective cohort study. Methods: Three documentation strategies were developed: (1) keyboard EHR, (2) mouse EHR, and (3) paper. Ophthalmology trainees recruited for the study were presented with 5 clinical cases and documented findings using each strategy. For each case-strategy pair, findings and documentation time were recorded. Accuracy of each strategy was calculated based on sensitivity (fraction of findings in actual case that were documented by subject) and positive ratio (fraction of findings identified by subject that were present in the actual case). Results: Twenty subjects were enrolled. A total of 258 findings were identified in the 5 cases, resulting in 300 case-strategy pairs and 77 400 possible total findings documented. Sensitivity was 89.1{\%} for the keyboard EHR, 87.2{\%} for mouse EHR, and 88.6{\%} for the paper strategy (no statistically significant differences). The positive ratio was 99.4{\%} for the keyboard EHR, 98.9{\%} for mouse EHR, and 99.9{\%} for the paper strategy (P",
author = "Patrick Chan and Thyparampil, {Preeti J.} and Michael Chiang",
year = "2013",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1016/j.ajo.2013.02.010",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "156",
journal = "American Journal of Ophthalmology",
issn = "0002-9394",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Accuracy and speed of electronic health record versus paper-based ophthalmic documentation strategies

AU - Chan, Patrick

AU - Thyparampil, Preeti J.

AU - Chiang, Michael

PY - 2013/7

Y1 - 2013/7

N2 - Purpose: To compare accuracy and speed of keyboard and mouse electronic health record (EHR) documentation strategies with those of a paper documentation strategy. Design: Prospective cohort study. Methods: Three documentation strategies were developed: (1) keyboard EHR, (2) mouse EHR, and (3) paper. Ophthalmology trainees recruited for the study were presented with 5 clinical cases and documented findings using each strategy. For each case-strategy pair, findings and documentation time were recorded. Accuracy of each strategy was calculated based on sensitivity (fraction of findings in actual case that were documented by subject) and positive ratio (fraction of findings identified by subject that were present in the actual case). Results: Twenty subjects were enrolled. A total of 258 findings were identified in the 5 cases, resulting in 300 case-strategy pairs and 77 400 possible total findings documented. Sensitivity was 89.1% for the keyboard EHR, 87.2% for mouse EHR, and 88.6% for the paper strategy (no statistically significant differences). The positive ratio was 99.4% for the keyboard EHR, 98.9% for mouse EHR, and 99.9% for the paper strategy (P

AB - Purpose: To compare accuracy and speed of keyboard and mouse electronic health record (EHR) documentation strategies with those of a paper documentation strategy. Design: Prospective cohort study. Methods: Three documentation strategies were developed: (1) keyboard EHR, (2) mouse EHR, and (3) paper. Ophthalmology trainees recruited for the study were presented with 5 clinical cases and documented findings using each strategy. For each case-strategy pair, findings and documentation time were recorded. Accuracy of each strategy was calculated based on sensitivity (fraction of findings in actual case that were documented by subject) and positive ratio (fraction of findings identified by subject that were present in the actual case). Results: Twenty subjects were enrolled. A total of 258 findings were identified in the 5 cases, resulting in 300 case-strategy pairs and 77 400 possible total findings documented. Sensitivity was 89.1% for the keyboard EHR, 87.2% for mouse EHR, and 88.6% for the paper strategy (no statistically significant differences). The positive ratio was 99.4% for the keyboard EHR, 98.9% for mouse EHR, and 99.9% for the paper strategy (P

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84879236659&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84879236659&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ajo.2013.02.010

DO - 10.1016/j.ajo.2013.02.010

M3 - Article

C2 - 23664152

AN - SCOPUS:84879236659

VL - 156

JO - American Journal of Ophthalmology

JF - American Journal of Ophthalmology

SN - 0002-9394

IS - 1

ER -