Cargando…
Perceived barriers to computerised quality documentation during anaesthesia: a survey of anaesthesia staff
BACKGROUND: Underreporting of intraoperative events in anaesthesia is well-known and compromises quality documentation. The reasons for such omissions remain unclear. We conducted a questionnaire-based survey of anaesthesia staff to explore perceived barriers to reliable documentation during anaesth...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4429922/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25971791 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2253-15-13 |
_version_ | 1782371098812219392 |
---|---|
author | Wacker, Johannes Steurer, Johann Manser, Tanja Leisinger, Elke Stocker, Reto Mols, Georg |
author_facet | Wacker, Johannes Steurer, Johann Manser, Tanja Leisinger, Elke Stocker, Reto Mols, Georg |
author_sort | Wacker, Johannes |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Underreporting of intraoperative events in anaesthesia is well-known and compromises quality documentation. The reasons for such omissions remain unclear. We conducted a questionnaire-based survey of anaesthesia staff to explore perceived barriers to reliable documentation during anaesthesia. METHODS: Participants anonymously completed a paper-based questionnaire. Predefined answers referred to potential barriers. Additional written comments were encouraged. Differences between physician and nurse anaesthetists were tested with t-tests and chi-square tests. RESULTS: Twenty-five physician and 30 nurse anaesthetists (81% of total staff) completed the survey. The reported problems referred to three main categories: (I) potential influences related to working conditions and practices of data collection, such as premature entry of the data (indicated by 85% of the respondents), competing duties (87%), and interfering interruptions or noise (67%); (II) problems referring to institutional management of the data, for example lacking feedback on the results (95%) and lacking knowledge about what the data are used for (75%); (III) problems related to specific attitudes, e.g., considering these data not useful for quality improvement (47%). Physicians were more sceptical than nurses regarding the relevance of these data for quality and patient safety. CONCLUSIONS: The common perceived difficulties reported by physician and nurse anaesthetists resemble established barriers to incident reporting and may similarly act as barriers to quality documentation during anaesthesia. Further studies should investigate if these perceived obstacles have a causal impact on quality reporting in anaesthesia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier is NCT01524484. Registration date: January 21, 2012. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2253-15-13) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4429922 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-44299222015-05-14 Perceived barriers to computerised quality documentation during anaesthesia: a survey of anaesthesia staff Wacker, Johannes Steurer, Johann Manser, Tanja Leisinger, Elke Stocker, Reto Mols, Georg BMC Anesthesiol Research Article BACKGROUND: Underreporting of intraoperative events in anaesthesia is well-known and compromises quality documentation. The reasons for such omissions remain unclear. We conducted a questionnaire-based survey of anaesthesia staff to explore perceived barriers to reliable documentation during anaesthesia. METHODS: Participants anonymously completed a paper-based questionnaire. Predefined answers referred to potential barriers. Additional written comments were encouraged. Differences between physician and nurse anaesthetists were tested with t-tests and chi-square tests. RESULTS: Twenty-five physician and 30 nurse anaesthetists (81% of total staff) completed the survey. The reported problems referred to three main categories: (I) potential influences related to working conditions and practices of data collection, such as premature entry of the data (indicated by 85% of the respondents), competing duties (87%), and interfering interruptions or noise (67%); (II) problems referring to institutional management of the data, for example lacking feedback on the results (95%) and lacking knowledge about what the data are used for (75%); (III) problems related to specific attitudes, e.g., considering these data not useful for quality improvement (47%). Physicians were more sceptical than nurses regarding the relevance of these data for quality and patient safety. CONCLUSIONS: The common perceived difficulties reported by physician and nurse anaesthetists resemble established barriers to incident reporting and may similarly act as barriers to quality documentation during anaesthesia. Further studies should investigate if these perceived obstacles have a causal impact on quality reporting in anaesthesia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier is NCT01524484. Registration date: January 21, 2012. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2253-15-13) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-01-31 /pmc/articles/PMC4429922/ /pubmed/25971791 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2253-15-13 Text en © Wacker et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Wacker, Johannes Steurer, Johann Manser, Tanja Leisinger, Elke Stocker, Reto Mols, Georg Perceived barriers to computerised quality documentation during anaesthesia: a survey of anaesthesia staff |
title | Perceived barriers to computerised quality documentation during anaesthesia: a survey of anaesthesia staff |
title_full | Perceived barriers to computerised quality documentation during anaesthesia: a survey of anaesthesia staff |
title_fullStr | Perceived barriers to computerised quality documentation during anaesthesia: a survey of anaesthesia staff |
title_full_unstemmed | Perceived barriers to computerised quality documentation during anaesthesia: a survey of anaesthesia staff |
title_short | Perceived barriers to computerised quality documentation during anaesthesia: a survey of anaesthesia staff |
title_sort | perceived barriers to computerised quality documentation during anaesthesia: a survey of anaesthesia staff |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4429922/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25971791 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2253-15-13 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wackerjohannes perceivedbarrierstocomputerisedqualitydocumentationduringanaesthesiaasurveyofanaesthesiastaff AT steurerjohann perceivedbarrierstocomputerisedqualitydocumentationduringanaesthesiaasurveyofanaesthesiastaff AT mansertanja perceivedbarrierstocomputerisedqualitydocumentationduringanaesthesiaasurveyofanaesthesiastaff AT leisingerelke perceivedbarrierstocomputerisedqualitydocumentationduringanaesthesiaasurveyofanaesthesiastaff AT stockerreto perceivedbarrierstocomputerisedqualitydocumentationduringanaesthesiaasurveyofanaesthesiastaff AT molsgeorg perceivedbarrierstocomputerisedqualitydocumentationduringanaesthesiaasurveyofanaesthesiastaff |