Anaesthesia personnels' perspectives on digital anaesthesia information management systems - a qualitative study.
Anaesthetist
Digital AIMS
Implementation
Nurse anaesthetist
Vigilance
Journal
BMC nursing
ISSN: 1472-6955
Titre abrégé: BMC Nurs
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088683
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Aug 2022
01 Aug 2022
Historique:
received:
05
02
2022
accepted:
27
07
2022
entrez:
1
8
2022
pubmed:
2
8
2022
medline:
2
8
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In Norway, the anaesthesia team normally consists of a nurse anaesthetist and an anaesthetist. Digital anesthesia information management systems (AIMS) that collect patient information directly from the anaesthesia workstation, and transmit the data into documentation systems have recently been implemented in Norway. Earlier studies have indicated that implementation of digital AIMS impacts the clinical workflow patterns and distracts the anaesthesia providers. These studies have mainly had a quantitative design and focused on functionality, installation designs, benefits and challenges associated with implementing and using AIMS. Hence, the aim of this study was to qualitatively explore anaesthesia personnel's perspectives on implementing and using digital AIMS. The study had an exploratory and descriptive design. The study was conducted within three non-university hospitals in Southern Norway. Qualitative, individual interviews with nurse anaesthetists (n = 9) and anaesthetists (n = 9) were conducted in the period September to December 2020. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis according to the recommendations of Graneheim and Lundman. Four categories were identified: 1) Balance between clinical assessment and monitoring, 2) Vigilance in relation to the patient, 3) The nurse-physician collaboration, and 4) Software issues. Participants described that anaesthesia included a continuous balance between clinical assessment and monitoring. They experienced that the digital AIMS had an impact on their vigilance in relation to the patient during anaesthesia. The digital AIMS affected the nurse-physician collaboration. Moreover, participants emphasised a lack of user participation and aspects of user-friendliness regarding the implementation of digital AIMS. Digital AIMS impacts vigilance in relation to the patient. Hence, collaboration and acceptance of the mutual responsibility between nurse anaesthetists and anaesthetists for both clinical observation and digital AIMS administration is essential. Anaesthesia personnel should be included in development and implementation processes to facilitate implementation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In Norway, the anaesthesia team normally consists of a nurse anaesthetist and an anaesthetist. Digital anesthesia information management systems (AIMS) that collect patient information directly from the anaesthesia workstation, and transmit the data into documentation systems have recently been implemented in Norway. Earlier studies have indicated that implementation of digital AIMS impacts the clinical workflow patterns and distracts the anaesthesia providers. These studies have mainly had a quantitative design and focused on functionality, installation designs, benefits and challenges associated with implementing and using AIMS. Hence, the aim of this study was to qualitatively explore anaesthesia personnel's perspectives on implementing and using digital AIMS.
METHODS
METHODS
The study had an exploratory and descriptive design. The study was conducted within three non-university hospitals in Southern Norway. Qualitative, individual interviews with nurse anaesthetists (n = 9) and anaesthetists (n = 9) were conducted in the period September to December 2020. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis according to the recommendations of Graneheim and Lundman.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Four categories were identified: 1) Balance between clinical assessment and monitoring, 2) Vigilance in relation to the patient, 3) The nurse-physician collaboration, and 4) Software issues. Participants described that anaesthesia included a continuous balance between clinical assessment and monitoring. They experienced that the digital AIMS had an impact on their vigilance in relation to the patient during anaesthesia. The digital AIMS affected the nurse-physician collaboration. Moreover, participants emphasised a lack of user participation and aspects of user-friendliness regarding the implementation of digital AIMS.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Digital AIMS impacts vigilance in relation to the patient. Hence, collaboration and acceptance of the mutual responsibility between nurse anaesthetists and anaesthetists for both clinical observation and digital AIMS administration is essential. Anaesthesia personnel should be included in development and implementation processes to facilitate implementation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35915471
doi: 10.1186/s12912-022-00998-9
pii: 10.1186/s12912-022-00998-9
pmc: PMC9340760
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
208Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Int J Med Inform. 2018 Oct;118:29-35
pubmed: 30153918
AANA J. 2014 Oct;82(5):346-51
pubmed: 25842649
J Anesth. 2008;22(4):404-11
pubmed: 19011780
Soc Sci Med. 2010 May;70(10):1618-25
pubmed: 20207464
BMJ Open. 2022 Jan 19;12(1):e052283
pubmed: 35045998
Nurse Educ Today. 2004 Feb;24(2):105-12
pubmed: 14769454
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2015 Sep;42(5):533-44
pubmed: 24193818
BMC Anesthesiol. 2016 Jan 16;16:4
pubmed: 26772179
PLoS One. 2020 May 5;15(5):e0232076
pubmed: 32369511
Biomed Sci Instrum. 1991;27:219-25
pubmed: 2065158
Anesth Analg. 2018 Jul;127(1):90-94
pubmed: 29049075
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2003 Dec;20(12):967-72
pubmed: 14690099
Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2018 Sep;162(3):198-205
pubmed: 29568123
Anesth Analg. 2017 Feb;124(2):603-617
pubmed: 28099325
Int Nurs Rev. 2019 Sep;66(3):404-415
pubmed: 30768709
Implement Sci. 2018 Feb 23;13(1):36
pubmed: 29475440
JMIR Hum Factors. 2020 Jun 16;7(2):e16036
pubmed: 32543440
Korean J Anesthesiol. 2012 Apr;62(4):350-7
pubmed: 22558502
Ann Behav Med. 2013 Aug;46(1):81-95
pubmed: 23512568
J Clin Monit Comput. 2011 Feb;25(1):71-9
pubmed: 20734117
Int J Obstet Anesth. 2009 Jan;18(1):22-7
pubmed: 18848442
Nurs Health Sci. 2013 Sep;15(3):398-405
pubmed: 23480423
J Clin Monit Comput. 2019 Jun;33(3):541-542
pubmed: 29956063
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Mar 4;20(1):163
pubmed: 32131815
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2014 Aug;58(7):794-801
pubmed: 24673620
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2018 Mar;62(3):411-417
pubmed: 29368359
Appl Ergon. 2017 Mar;59(Pt A):45-55
pubmed: 27890158
J Perianesth Nurs. 2016 Dec;31(6):550-551
pubmed: 27931710
BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Aug;27(8):655-663
pubmed: 29317463
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2018 Nov 7;18(1):93
pubmed: 30404638
Mt Sinai J Med. 2012 Jan-Feb;79(1):154-65
pubmed: 22238048
BMJ Open. 2019 May 15;9(5):e026410
pubmed: 31097486
Int J Clin Monit Comput. 1992;9(2):117-29
pubmed: 1431474
Br J Anaesth. 2010 Jul;105(1):38-44
pubmed: 20522911
J Adv Nurs. 2010 Mar;66(3):552-61
pubmed: 20423390
AANA J. 2021 Dec;89(6):509-514
pubmed: 34809756
J Clin Anesth. 1994 Jul-Aug;6(4):333-41
pubmed: 7946371
J Anesth Hist. 2019 Jul;5(3):93-98
pubmed: 31570203