电子病历系统与手工书写入院记录的效率对比研究

目的探讨电子病历系统书写入院记录的效率。方法将16位学历、实习时间相同的实习医生随机分成2组,分别使用电子病历系统方法与传统的手工方法书写入院记录;1周后,2组人员调换,再次书写相同入院记录,全过程实时记录完成入院记录各部分的时间。将医生完成入院记录的时间换算为速度分数,专家对病历的评分记为质量分数,二者加权后得到综合分数,并对两种方法进行统计检验。结果在完成时间上,电子病历系统方法组书写入院记录平均总用时为19．85min,手写方法组为39．49min;在完成质量上,现病史、既往史、个人史、家族史和体格检查5项及总体得分电子病历系统方法组高于手写方法组;在综合效率上,电子病历系统方法组平均分数为91．13分,手工方法组为65．72 分,其差异具有统计学意义(P<0．01)。结论电子病历系统方法能够有效提高入院记录书写速度和质量,大大减轻医生书写入院记录的工作量,书写入院记录效率明显优于手工方法。

Difference in efficiency between computer-based and handwritten hospital admissions records

Objective To explore the efficiency of writing admissions records with the electronic medical record system. Methods 16 interns with the same educational backgrounds and residency periods were randomized into 2 groups and wrote admissions records respectively with the electronic system and by hand, the traditional method. 1 week later, the same records were again written by the two groups, now each using the other's method. The time for completing each part of the records was noted down in real time across the entire process. The time taken by the interns to complete the records was changed into marks of speed, the assessments of the records by experts were changed into marks of quality, and composite marks resulted from the two after weighting. Statistical testing was done with the two methods. Results In terms of time, the average total time taken by the electronic and traditional groups was respectively 19. 85 m and 39. 49 m; in terms of quality, the electronic group got higher marks in scores for present, past, personal, and family histories and physical examination and in the overall score; in terms of general efficiency, the electronic group got average marks of 91. 13 while the traditional group got average marks of 65. 72, the difference being statistically significant (P<0. 01). Conclusion Using the electronic medical record system can effectively improve the speed and quality of writing admissions records, greatly reduce the work volume of physicians, and bring about much greater efficiency than the traditional method.