Anesthesia Information System vs Paper Anesthesia Records for Care Congruency

Anesthesia information systems (AIMS) are increasingly used to electronically capture physiologic and management data during anesthesia. Proponents tout an improved accuracy of data yet this has not been formally evaluated. Furthermore, whether AIMS is associated with changes in medical care is unknown. Studies with newer technologies have demonstrated increased medical interventions as a result of implementation. The pulmonary artery catheter was shown to increase medical interventions when used yet no improvement in outcomes are observed and some suggest a deleterious effect. 1 Several studies suggest improved patient care with electronic anesthesia records. 2,3 These all center around clinical decision support that reminds clinicians to give certain medications or ensure chart completion. Despite these advantages there are no studies evaluating the 'hawthorne effect' of AIMS. Physiologic data is now recorded at each data point using AIMS. This differs significantly from paper anesthesia records in which clinicians often chart physiologic trends choosing to omit spurious values. It is possible that a Hawthorne effect may occur in this scenario with increased data collection and an increased ability to scrutinize the medical record. Given the litigious nature of medical practice today, there is concern about the impact of AIMS on medicolegal liability. 4 Yet, to date the effect of AIMS on medical interventions has not been studied. We seek to retrospectively evaluate paper and electronic anesthesia records among a single surgical population (esophageal surgery) to ascertain any differences that may exist between cohorts with regards to chart completion, anesthetic management and medical care.

Inclusion criteria

• Underwent esophageal surgery and had anesthetic documented in medical record

Exclusion criteria

• Cases less than one hour