Professional and interprofessional differences in electronic health records use and recognition of safety issues in critically ill patients

Knewton K. Sakata, Laurel S. Stephenson, Ashley Mulanax, Jesse Bierman, Karess Mcgrath, Gretchen Scholl, Adrienne McDougal, David T. Bearden, Vishnu Mohan, Jeffrey (Jeff) Gold

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

During interprofessional intensive care unit (ICU) rounds each member of the interprofessional team is responsible for gathering and interpreting information from the electronic health records (EHR) to facilitate effective team decision-making. This study was conducted to determine how each professional group reviews EHR data in preparation for rounds and their ability to identify patient safety issues. Twenty-five physicians, 29 nurses, and 20 pharmacists participated. Individual participants were given verbal and written sign-out and then asked to review a simulated record in our institution’s EHR, which contained 14 patient safety items. After reviewing the chart, subjects presented the patient and the number of safety items recognised was recorded. About 40%, 30%, and 26% of safety issues were recognised by physicians, nurses, and pharmacists, respectively (p = 0.0006) and no item recognised 100% of the time. There was little overlap between the three groups with only 50% of items predicted to be recognised 100% of the time by the team. Differential recognition was associated with marked differences in EHR use, with only 3/152 EHR screens utilised by all three groups and the majority of screens used exclusively only by one group. There were significant and non-overlapping differences in individual profession recognition of patient safety issues in the EHR. Preferential identification of safety issues by certain professional groups may be attributed to differences in EHR use. Future studies will be needed to determine if shared decision-making during rounds can improve recognition of safety issues.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-7
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Interprofessional Care
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jun 25 2016

Fingerprint

Electronic Health Records
Critical Illness
Safety
Patient Safety
Pharmacists
Decision Making
Nurses
Physicians
Aptitude
Recognition (Psychology)
Individuality
Intensive Care Units

Keywords

  • Communication
  • interprofessional collaboration
  • interprofessional practice
  • quantitative method
  • simulation
  • team effectiveness

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Professional and interprofessional differences in electronic health records use and recognition of safety issues in critically ill patients. / Sakata, Knewton K.; Stephenson, Laurel S.; Mulanax, Ashley; Bierman, Jesse; Mcgrath, Karess; Scholl, Gretchen; McDougal, Adrienne; Bearden, David T.; Mohan, Vishnu; Gold, Jeffrey (Jeff).

In: Journal of Interprofessional Care, 25.06.2016, p. 1-7.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sakata, Knewton K. ; Stephenson, Laurel S. ; Mulanax, Ashley ; Bierman, Jesse ; Mcgrath, Karess ; Scholl, Gretchen ; McDougal, Adrienne ; Bearden, David T. ; Mohan, Vishnu ; Gold, Jeffrey (Jeff). / Professional and interprofessional differences in electronic health records use and recognition of safety issues in critically ill patients. In: Journal of Interprofessional Care. 2016 ; pp. 1-7.
@article{07d0261e1a574f498f18f61db7d4c298,
title = "Professional and interprofessional differences in electronic health records use and recognition of safety issues in critically ill patients",
abstract = "During interprofessional intensive care unit (ICU) rounds each member of the interprofessional team is responsible for gathering and interpreting information from the electronic health records (EHR) to facilitate effective team decision-making. This study was conducted to determine how each professional group reviews EHR data in preparation for rounds and their ability to identify patient safety issues. Twenty-five physicians, 29 nurses, and 20 pharmacists participated. Individual participants were given verbal and written sign-out and then asked to review a simulated record in our institution’s EHR, which contained 14 patient safety items. After reviewing the chart, subjects presented the patient and the number of safety items recognised was recorded. About 40{\%}, 30{\%}, and 26{\%} of safety issues were recognised by physicians, nurses, and pharmacists, respectively (p = 0.0006) and no item recognised 100{\%} of the time. There was little overlap between the three groups with only 50{\%} of items predicted to be recognised 100{\%} of the time by the team. Differential recognition was associated with marked differences in EHR use, with only 3/152 EHR screens utilised by all three groups and the majority of screens used exclusively only by one group. There were significant and non-overlapping differences in individual profession recognition of patient safety issues in the EHR. Preferential identification of safety issues by certain professional groups may be attributed to differences in EHR use. Future studies will be needed to determine if shared decision-making during rounds can improve recognition of safety issues.",
keywords = "Communication, interprofessional collaboration, interprofessional practice, quantitative method, simulation, team effectiveness",
author = "Sakata, {Knewton K.} and Stephenson, {Laurel S.} and Ashley Mulanax and Jesse Bierman and Karess Mcgrath and Gretchen Scholl and Adrienne McDougal and Bearden, {David T.} and Vishnu Mohan and Gold, {Jeffrey (Jeff)}",
year = "2016",
month = "6",
day = "25",
doi = "10.1080/13561820.2016.1193479",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "1--7",
journal = "Journal of Interprofessional Care",
issn = "1356-1820",
publisher = "Informa Healthcare",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Professional and interprofessional differences in electronic health records use and recognition of safety issues in critically ill patients

AU - Sakata, Knewton K.

AU - Stephenson, Laurel S.

AU - Mulanax, Ashley

AU - Bierman, Jesse

AU - Mcgrath, Karess

AU - Scholl, Gretchen

AU - McDougal, Adrienne

AU - Bearden, David T.

AU - Mohan, Vishnu

AU - Gold, Jeffrey (Jeff)

PY - 2016/6/25

Y1 - 2016/6/25

N2 - During interprofessional intensive care unit (ICU) rounds each member of the interprofessional team is responsible for gathering and interpreting information from the electronic health records (EHR) to facilitate effective team decision-making. This study was conducted to determine how each professional group reviews EHR data in preparation for rounds and their ability to identify patient safety issues. Twenty-five physicians, 29 nurses, and 20 pharmacists participated. Individual participants were given verbal and written sign-out and then asked to review a simulated record in our institution’s EHR, which contained 14 patient safety items. After reviewing the chart, subjects presented the patient and the number of safety items recognised was recorded. About 40%, 30%, and 26% of safety issues were recognised by physicians, nurses, and pharmacists, respectively (p = 0.0006) and no item recognised 100% of the time. There was little overlap between the three groups with only 50% of items predicted to be recognised 100% of the time by the team. Differential recognition was associated with marked differences in EHR use, with only 3/152 EHR screens utilised by all three groups and the majority of screens used exclusively only by one group. There were significant and non-overlapping differences in individual profession recognition of patient safety issues in the EHR. Preferential identification of safety issues by certain professional groups may be attributed to differences in EHR use. Future studies will be needed to determine if shared decision-making during rounds can improve recognition of safety issues.

AB - During interprofessional intensive care unit (ICU) rounds each member of the interprofessional team is responsible for gathering and interpreting information from the electronic health records (EHR) to facilitate effective team decision-making. This study was conducted to determine how each professional group reviews EHR data in preparation for rounds and their ability to identify patient safety issues. Twenty-five physicians, 29 nurses, and 20 pharmacists participated. Individual participants were given verbal and written sign-out and then asked to review a simulated record in our institution’s EHR, which contained 14 patient safety items. After reviewing the chart, subjects presented the patient and the number of safety items recognised was recorded. About 40%, 30%, and 26% of safety issues were recognised by physicians, nurses, and pharmacists, respectively (p = 0.0006) and no item recognised 100% of the time. There was little overlap between the three groups with only 50% of items predicted to be recognised 100% of the time by the team. Differential recognition was associated with marked differences in EHR use, with only 3/152 EHR screens utilised by all three groups and the majority of screens used exclusively only by one group. There were significant and non-overlapping differences in individual profession recognition of patient safety issues in the EHR. Preferential identification of safety issues by certain professional groups may be attributed to differences in EHR use. Future studies will be needed to determine if shared decision-making during rounds can improve recognition of safety issues.

KW - Communication

KW - interprofessional collaboration

KW - interprofessional practice

KW - quantitative method

KW - simulation

KW - team effectiveness

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84976292507&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84976292507&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/13561820.2016.1193479

DO - 10.1080/13561820.2016.1193479

M3 - Article

C2 - 27341177

AN - SCOPUS:84976292507

SP - 1

EP - 7

JO - Journal of Interprofessional Care

JF - Journal of Interprofessional Care

SN - 1356-1820

ER -