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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wacker, Johannes, Steurer, Johann, Manser, Tanja, Leisinger, Elke, Stocker, Reto, Mols, Georg
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