Linked Life Data

9260381

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/9260381

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
4
pubmed:dateCreated
1997-9-12
pubmed:abstractText
This article describes a comparative study that examined the frequencies of nursing activities, when using a clinical information system (CIS) and a paper-based documentation system in an Australian intensive care unit. The study unit had half the beds equipped with a CIS, and the remaining beds used paper documentation. Work sampling methodology was used to observe nurses working with both systems. Though there were differences for all activities between the environments and the directions of the differences were logical, none were statistically significant using a chi-square test (P = .11-0.65), probably because of the small sample size. This study established that work sampling methodology using a random timer is a valid and relatively easy method to capture work activity in the clinical area. Although this article does not provide definitive information regarding the benefits of a CIS over manual documentation, a number of important methodological issues are discussed, including the study design, procedure, use of dedicated observers, and the distinction between basic versus fully optioned systems. Future research should evaluate the efficiency, impact on patient outcomes and nursing practice, and cost effectiveness of fully optioned systems.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:issn
0736-8593
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
15
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
205-11
pubmed:dateRevised
2006-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:articleTitle
A comparison of nursing activities associated with manual and automated documentation in an Australian intensive care unit.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Comparative Study, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't