Here are some Frequently Asked Questions about Recordation Electronic Health Records. Click the (+) for responses.
While traditionally the anesthetizing location has been the operating room, much of modern anesthesia workflow occurs outside of the operating room.
There are typically 3 workflow scenarios in which Recordation Workstation is used.
In the most typical workflow, Recordation Workstation is set up in an established location such as the operating room, along with a patient monitor, ventilator and other related medical equipment. From this location, anesthesia documentation for surgical procedures are created.
Prior to the time of transportation out of the operating room, the anesthesia documentation in progress is saved to the Recordation Central Server. This is a secured computer location hosting an archive where saved anesthetic procedures and perioperative information is stored.
Members of the anesthesia care team use a dedicated Recordation Workstation in the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit, for example, to resume the case that was in progress for its completion.
In the second workflow scenario, a dedicated anesthesia location outside of the operating room is set up with a patient monitor and other medical devices for monitoring procedures such as the placement of invasive monitoring catheters, post-surgical pain management catheters, And for procedures such as electroconvulsive therapy, echocardiography under anesthesia and the like. At this location, either a dedicated computer with wired access or a laptop or tablet could be used with wireless access to the recordation system. Here, a special procedure note would be started for the documentation of the specifics of the procedure and process with the automated capture of vital signs.
A third workflow scenario could be used for the performance of a preoperative evaluation at the patient’s bedside for example. Wireless access to the Recordation system is achieved using a tablet or laptop. Members of the anesthesia team would have access to the preoperative evaluation application, with access to the patients demographics.
Additionally, users have access to previous preoperative evaluations, special procedures, surgical procedures and the like.
In many cases, operating rooms are cramped. There are patient monitors, anesthesia machines, ventilators, and medical devices not to mention surgical equipment such as operative cameras, electrocautery units, lasers, and the like.
Each of these compete for the small amount of real estate available. Adding more equipment to this mix should be considered from an ergonomic standpoint prior to installation.
Because Recordation uses off-the-shelf Windows-based hardware, Workstation is available in many form factors, from small tablets to laptops to swing-arm mounted touch screen displays.
In situations where space is limited, a tablet or small laptop might be advantageous, and in larger rooms where more space is available, a swing-arm mounted screen may be represent more ergonomic possibilities.
Additionally, in multi-suite operating room facilities, each room’s layout may suggest a different form factor that would allow for, example, a note book in room 1, a tablet in room 2, and a swing-arm in room 3. There are pros and cons with each form factor:
Recordation specialists will work with designated members of the anesthesia care and surgical facility to help choose the most appropriate installation plan, based upon the facility’s budget, desired time for Go Live, and the nature of the anesthesia workflow.
In the event of an adverse outcome, the anesthetic record will be used for others to try to understand the information that was available in the environment of the anesthesia care team and how the information was interpreted, and how some conditions may or may not have been treated.
This applies to a handwritten record and an electronic record.
The differences between each documentation method are significant. The handwritten record, while used traditionally to document aneesthetic events, is typically created in real time, but can be created and edited with no traceable timestamps. Pens can effectively write all types of data, create signatures, symbols and drawing anywhere on the chart. Once a handwritten chart is copied or scanned, modifications can no longer be made.
Electronic records, by their nature, record a great deal more information by appending timestamps to manually added data and record some events in real time directly from patient monitors, ventilators, and Hospital Information Systems. They purposefully track the person making entries and modifications as well as the time of the modification, and times and locations where users are signed in and out of the system. This is to maintain the integrity of the system.
In such cases where an adverse event occurs, the quality and quantity of documentation will influence the outcome of the investigation, whether handwritten or electronic. Appropriate care that has been documented appropriately and in a timely fashion will be helpful in determining possible causes for the adverse event in question.
Conversely, inappropriate care that is not documented or documentation of care that was not performed will not be helpful in either handwritten or electronic methods of documentation.
Avoiding the use of electronic health records in fear of data being used against the practitioner may be unfounded in that the abundance of information contained in a medical electronic record can also be used in favor of the practitioner if appropriate care and documentation occur.
Conversely, the scrutiny of a handwritten record that was created or modified after the events, whether purposely or because of the clinical situation demanding the caregiver’s attention, may lead the examiners to inappropriate conclusions, such as:
Appropriate or inappropriate care referenced in the handwritten documentation may not be believed and may prove difficult to authenticate objectively.
Given the realities of handwritten and electronic anesthesia information systems, practitioners should do their best to provide their best care and their best efforts at documentation.
The best approach is to understand the differences between the two methods of documentation, and how they might affect the outcome of an investigation of any adverse event.
In summary, handwritten records may offer less information that can be objectively authenticated than a record created by a comprehensive, high-frequency physiologic data capture and recording system such as Recordation Workstation.
Recordation Workstation collects patient physiologic data electronically verbatim from the patient monitor. While artifacts such as electrocautery and patient movement may affect how data is interpreted by the patient monitor and transmitted to the electronic record, there are ways to minimize the effect of some types of artifact on the final anesthetic record.
One such method is by collecting data at high frequency, and Recordation Workstation captures up to 100 numeric data points per second, including parameters such as oxygen saturation, multi-source heart rate from both plethysmography and electrocardiography, temperature, inspired and expired oxygen, nitrous oxide and inhalational agent concentrations, and many others. The rate that we can collect such data is dependent on the capabilities of the patient monitor.
By collecting data at high frequency, Recordation Workstation is able to obtain more data points that can be processed for the final output with various filters, such as “averaging over time.” In the event that a great deal of artifact is present for long periods of time, filtering of the parameter would not be helpful, and if the artifact appears to depict a dangerous clinical situation, an artifact addendum can easily be added to the documentation.
As artifact occurs frequently in the operating room environment, it is not unusual to appear on electronic records. It is important to note that the data that electronic records capture is the same as that which appears to the anesthesia team on the patient monitor screen. Therefore, the best approach is to maintain good data collection habits, such as the appropriate locations for EKG lead, blood pressure cuff and oxygen saturation probe placements, and adjusting them, if possible, if artifact occurs.
Instances of extremes of physiologic parameters such as with heart rate or blood pressure, are also captured electronically, and if prolonged, may appear in the final anesthetic record. Typically, when treated appropriately and in a timely manner, they respond to treatment, and analysis of the documentation at a later time would show that appropriate care was rendered. Prolonged artifactual extremes may be documented as such.
Therefore, if there were so much vital sign artifact as to render a final anesthetic record “useless,” then the data presented to the anesthesia care team during the anesthetic would also be useless, and should be adjusted at the time of care.
Frustration can accompany the learning of any new process, and especially during the implementation phase of an anesthesia electronic health record. Because anesthesia care typically occurs in real time, the documentation of interventions and observations may or may not occur in real time, and pressures to generate and complete documentation can impose stress on memebers of the anesthesia care team.
Anesthesia electronic health records from different vendors present various levels of complexity with respect to the learning curve and continued use. Recordation strives to improve the user experience from the planning stage throughout the deployment, training, implementation phases, and ongoing through continued used and upgrade periods.
Recordation goes to great length to facilitate the entry of the most important elements of anesthetic documentation into the system with the least amount of burden to the user. Elements that are deemed required by the Departments of Anesthesia and Medical Records for the completion of an electronic record are requested of the practitioner prior to the completion of the chart to avoid requests for the information when it may have been forgotten.
Recordation uses aids such as Documentation Wizards that significantly facilitate data entry describing routine and extraordinary events that occur during anesthesia.
If the practitioner follows the document protocols that built into the Recordation system, with rules that can be adjusted for an individual Department of Anesthesia, then the final anesthesia record should be complete from a documentation, medical record, and billing standpoint.
Certainly practitioners are also free to add any elements of documentation that they deem appropriate.
There are many practitioners established in the practice of anesthesia that are content using pen and paper for anesthesia documenatation and may continue to do so for the remainder of their careers.
While some electronic anesthesia systems are difficult to learn, most users of Recordation Workstation invest approximately one week with online, on-site and real-time clinical environment-based training to become proficient.
Factors that significantly determine how much time is invested in the adoption of electronic anesthesia recording systems depend upon the users’:
Recordation team members are always available to work with groups or individuals that might want practice or to better understand ways of using the system. Sessions can be remote, or on site. , depending on the users availability.
The concept that pen and paper (the handwritten electronic anesthesia record) is “just fine” is a different question. Please refer to FAQ . While many practitioners have been documenting with pen and paper from the beginning of their careers, it is likely that the handwritten record will eventually be replaced by the electronic health record as better systems become more prevalent.
Whether an practitioners can continue handwritten anesthesia documentation may no longer be a choice depending upon the circumstances surrounding the institution(s) in which they practice.
It is certainly the hope of the contributors to Recordation Perioperative Software, that anesthesia practitioners participate in the implementation, development and Improvement of all anesthesia electronic health recording systems .
The implementation of any new practice pattern may be a source of stress for any practitioner. The factors that influence how stressful the process will be include the ease or difficulty of the system itself , the degree of training that accompanies the implementation of an anesthesia Health System, the practitioners experience with computer technology in general, and other electronic health records. as part of ongoing quality assurance Ian’s development, recordation personnel practice anesthesia using both the handwritten record and the electronic record at the same time in an effort to improve are graphic user interface and minimize the burden that electronic documentation imposes on its users. There is a learning curve accompanying the adoption of any new technology, but atypical implementation with recordation involves a training period during which the users can maintain the handwritten record along with using the electronic record simultaneously. In the case of a difficult clinical situation or other reasons, or for technical reasons such as Hardware malfunction, the handwritten record can provide a backup or alternative to the electronic record and potentially lower the stress of using the new system. Additionally, recordation provides both on-site and remote technical support if questions arise either in real time or after the fact.
Our users have provided feedback over the years that has helped decrease the potential stress involved with using a new system such as recordation. Things that improve the implementation process include live individualized training prior to clinical use, live individualized training in the operating room, remote support via secure electronic assistance, and regular meetings to discuss usability issues and ways for improvement. recordation typically improves anesthesia workflow and the great majority of our users would not want to go back to the handwritten record after using the system.
Everyone makes mistakes and there are ways to deal with all forms of data entry weather there mistakes or on purpose. Handwritten errors can be crossed out inside in this occurs in most handwritten records at some point.
In the electronic record, data entry is handled differently, as there is a person entering the data and there is data that is entered at a certain time. Some data entry also requires authorization or proof from the person entering the data that the day that was entered at a specific time. Different systems handle mistakes differently. Recordation allows the entry of medications, comments, and other elements of documentation either in real time or retrospectively. For each data entry, we track the time that the entry was made. Medications can be deleted if they were given Miss documented . If a medication was given at a time when the practitioner was not able to enter into the record, he or she may change the time such that it will appear on the final record at the time given. Internally, the time that the data entry was made is also tracked. This protects the system from allowing retrospective documentation without having occurred.
Data authentication, (has requiring the users electronic signature
)in recordation, also allows the practitioner to establish that he or she made an entry into the medical record at a given time .
Also by tracking both the time that data entries are made and the time that they are pure appear helps to establish the likelihood that an event occurred. For example, if all medication documentation occurred close to real time and are reflected in the electronic record, they are more likely to be defendable . in the case where Annette an adverse outcome occurred and medication additions and comments were added retrospectively, they are less likely to be believed.
Handwritten records are not immune to disbelief . high levels of detail while the time that handwritten entries are made to a paper record is not typically tracked, higher than usual levels of detail , comments and medication Editions made retrospectively May add suspicion to a handwritten record . in general, entries to the electronic record that are made in good faith and relatively close to the time that they occurred appears so in the final electronic record.
The degree of difficulty in entering data into any electronic health-record depends on how it centered and how much data is required to be entered. Recordation continually tries to make data entry meaningful and easy from the practitioners perspective. Tore that in, we provide Wizards and facilitated means of entering most data. For example, to document the multitude of parameters 4 Airway management, those the airway management wizard presents commonly occurring parameters such as laryngoscope blade used , and a tracheal tube size, and a tracheal tube length , number of attempts Etc, and incorporates these into a default such that only one button click is required to accurately document the details of a particular endotracheal intubation. Defaults our department or practitioner specific such that if the user typically uses a Macintosh three-blade for intubation, that can be selected as his or her first choice. In the case where an unusual occurrence , the user is able to enter data manually, although this takes longer, it is not usually the case.
The quality of comments and additions to the electronic health record and the quantity help to determine how easy or difficult it is to enter data. Routinely, comments that are used repetitively can be incorporated into the documentation wizard such that and configured as a default if these comments are chosen frequently. For the most part, most comments are selected from the documentation Wizard and free text or manually entered comments are rarely required. This greatly reduces the documentation burden for each practitioner.
Recordation was written by and has been improved practicing anesthesia health care providers and information technology specialists working together to improve anesthesia workflow. Most users will take one overview training session and 3-4 anesthetic procedures to become proficient in its use.
The factors that determine how easy or difficult it is for a practitioner to start using recordation or any anesthesia recording system include his or her experience with computer technology, with other electronic health records including other anesthesia recording systems, his or her training willingness 2 using such systems, and historically, anesthesia Information Systems have been difficult to use and this is one of the reasons that there early acceptance was delayed . Many such systems hindered the anesthesia care team’s ability to provide care and documentation sitania slee simultaneously . and given their early costs and the difficulty of integrating diverse Information Systems, many anesthesia practitioners shows to use what they are accustomed to the handwritten record.
Whether a particular operating room suite is amenable to an electronic anesthesia recording system depends upon many factors; usually a small size or number of rooms is the least important.
The most practical determinants of compatibility are the ability to interface with the patient monitoring equipment, which may be old, new, and vary from room to room, and the ability to support a computer network in the environment where anesthesia will be administered.
There is no number of operating rooms that are too small to support electronic anesthesia documentation; no anesthetizing location able to support the anesthesia personnel and equipment can also support an anesthesia EHR, and even one operating room is enough to justify the use of electronic systems.
Additionally, there are many single operating room locations such as Surgical Offices that perform simple to complex procedures, and this number and the tendency to provide anesthesia services therein, is growing. The anesthesia care model also may involve one practitioner traveling to multiple small locations , and in this instance, having a portable anesthesia electronic health record makes a great deal of sense. The other side of the size issue is that the number of anesthetizing locations may be too large, or spread over great distances, for some systems to operate efficiently.
The patient monitoring and ventillitory equipment that the surgical facility uses may vary significantly, which influences the ability of the anethesia EHR from receiving invormation from them. The most important factor is typically the age of the equipment. While some older equipment functions today from 20 or more years ago, it may or may not have the capability of providing data electronically to any anesthesia electronic record. Facilities that are most amenable two electronic anesthesia health records are those that have relatively homogeneous equipment or the same equipment in each room , no matter how large or small, that is capable of transmitting data two anesthesia systems.
The factors that determine how easy it is to acquire data from patient monitors and ventilators include the manufacturer is desire to provide this data easily–this is called interoperability. While increasingly in the United States governmental efforts have attempted to increase interoperability or a device’s willingness to send and receive data to and from other systems, the anesthesia environment has always been a blend of whatever equipment might be available at the time and depends on the department of anesthesia budget for equipment purchase.
So in an operating room environment that has different equipment in each room , some of which may be old and non-communicative, the adaptation of an electronic health record would be more difficult.
Recordation has been working with anesthesia equipment for over 20 years and has established communication protocols with various manufacturers. They’re also companies that specialize in establishing, maintaining and translating electronic data from numerous medical equipment manufacturers that can be helpful in operating room environments with many different manufacturers equipment present.
The return on investment for electronic anesthesia records has been studied in depth. It is certainly difficult to convince administrators decision makers in a surgicenter or in an anesthesia group to invest in any technology when the ultimate return on investment is difficult to quantify. Even the clearly demonstrated advantages of having data that is readily available to analyze that can be used to study quality, safety and cost may not be enough to convince to make the initial decision.
One also needs to look at the opportunity cost of maintaining the handwritten record system, and of not having meaningful data to use in quality assurance studies, advances in operational efficiency, or improved billing practices.
Part of the argument concerning return-on-investment is, principally, who is making the investment, and to whom does the investment return, as these two parties may not be the same.
for healthcare facilities that are truly concerned about financial operational efficiency, having data in information to understand costs, operating room metrics, and areas for improvement can be invaluable. On the other hand, an anesthesia group having access to high quality data can lead to improve practice patterns and competitiveness.
This begets the question of who should make the investment, and this may depend upon the financial make up of the institution.as there are different business models to suggest different path. who should make the investment depends on the financial arrangement between the surgery center and the anesthesia group.
for institutions that employ anesthesia groups, it might be in the institutions’ best interest to assume the costs of anesthesia recording systems both to understand the operational efficiency and to maintain the system in place if the anesthesia group decides to stop providing care at a facility or the facility decides to choose another anesthesia group.
For anesthesia groups that are interested in gathering , understanding and improving their metrics and for using this data to increase their competitiveness or for anesthesia groups that may provide anesthesia services two multiple facilities, it may be in the group’s interests to assume the financial responsibilities of an anesthesia recording system. In this situation, the group may have private access to data and reports that it generates to maintain its competitiveness in relation to other anesthesia groups or national benchmarks.
The best one can do to optimize return on investment is to minimize the investment and committment, and use the data to understand and establish more cost effective practice patterns..
Many electronic anesthesia recording systems are very expensive and can take years to deploy.
Factors that influence the difficulty in setting up and implementing an information system include the cost of the system, the existing operating room environment including the patient monitors and anesthesia equipment currently in use, the the age of the equipment currently in use in its ability to communicate information two other systems, and the number of Anna’s the tiesing inesta tiesing locations. And the ability to establish network communication to each Anodizing location.
Recordation’s business model is Software as a Service, with a manageable monthly fee per workstation, without a long term contract. Typically the anesthesia group or institution purchases off-the-shelf Windows-based hardware per our suggestion. A server (computer) is installed on site for hosting the core software and secure web interface, and another server for interfacing with the hospital information system, if desired. The facility provides hardwired network access to each anesthesia location. Once hardware is purchased and network access is established, the system can be configured remotely prior to an on-site training period.
Once installed, Recordation spends a predetermined period of time in on site training, and maintains and upgrades the system. Remote online live assistance is also available for questions and usability issues, and a feedback button is built into the system for questions, feedback and suggestions for features.
It may be true that some of the larger, more expensive anesthesia recording systems take a great deal of time from two go live date from the initial point at which the decision was made to investigate anesthesia recording systems. Typically, the more expensive the system, the longer it takes . because the larger the capital outlay, the more is involved with the decision-making process, going through committees, comparing systems that are available, and considering the integration of these systems along with their expenses into the hospital’s existing information system.
At recordation, we feel that the risk that is imposed upon an anesthesia group or surgical facility is minimized by the use of our software which requires a substantially reduced initial capital outlay and the absence of long-term contractual obligations. once a decision is made to go forward with recordation, we establish relationships with members of Department of it decision makers in the department of Information Technology such that the network and server locations can be secured. Once this is accomplish, pre-configured Hardware can be placed at each operating room location , connected to the network, and used relatively immediately. Because Recreation software can function with or without connections to the hospital or facilities existing information system, our deployment time is relatively fast. The system can be put to use immediately while connections, if desired, to the hospital information system are established.
In an ideal situation, with established Network and server elements, working units can be used with training in as short as two to three weeks. Well this is not possible in every installation, it is certainly achievable.
Electronic systems record data that come from patient monitors, which are prone to artifact. Common examples include electrocautery machines interfering with EKG heart rates. As the data is typically recorded verbatim, the data can be processed to minimize the effects of artifact on the final printed output.
Recordation electronic anesthesia systems record physiologic data via and Electronic Connection to Patient monitors. , as well as those from other manufacturers, it is a common occurrence for other electronic devices or situations that occur in the operating room to cause the monitors two display art of factual information . what is worse, is that these monitors also transmit artificial data to electronic health records. whether or not the data represents reality, this data is presented to the practitioner and to the electronic health record and represents the environment under which care is given. While practitioners are especially good at filtering out artificial information, electronic health records may not be as good.
Additionally, patient monitors will present all data to electronic health records , including extremes and artifacts as discussed. While anesthesia healthcare providers May successfully filter route these appearances or these Extremes in the written record, it becomes more difficult two have to deal with artifact or physiological extremes on an electronic record.
Recordation was designed from it’s earliest Inception to record as much data as possible two effectively minimize the occurrence of occasional artifact and normal variations in physiological States.
Recordation collects data once per second for up to one hundred simultaneous numeric parameters, such that occasional artifact is effectively filtered out. In general, artifact, such as heart rate displayed as 324 beats per second, are obvious, and the are often ignored. Other artifact, such as non-invasive or oscillometric blood pressure reading being affected by movements are usually occasional. If artifactual readings continue to occur, quick comments can be made to describe the situation.
Normal variations in physiologic parameters such as hypotension, hypertension, oxygen desaturation, and the like, are treated appropriately and these treatments and their results are expected during routine anesthetics.
In reality, electronic records can be helpful in establishing the credibility of the anesthetic record. In comparison to handwritten, often illegible paper charts, electronic records may represent a more credible account of the operating room environment as it happened.
Certainly, electronically captured vital signs represent a “flight recorder” that may be scrutinized at a later time. In the case of an adverse patient outcome, appropriate medical care will be easier to defend electronically than on handwritten, often illegible paper charts.
One can also argue that flight recorders encourage pilots to pay more attention to their environments, and the same may be seen in medicine. Neither Electronic anesthesia recording systems nor fabricated handwritten charts will help bad practice patterns.
We know that flight recording systems are here to stay and for many of the reasons that flight recording systems improve the safety of airline travel and our understandings of critical events , it is likely that automated anesthesia recording systems will increase in popularity and become the standard of care for the practice of anesthesia and to improve patient safety and our understanding of the operating room environment .
Many anesthesia practitioners are able to consistently document the required elements of anesthesia techniques and practices on paper. Unfortunately, as the handwritten record is potentially the only lasting documentation of what occurred during an anaesthetic, and because the importance of the anesthesia record may not be appreciated until many days after the anesthetic is completed, many regulatory agencies in insurance companies have increased their demand for detail documentation.
Take a look at common depth of anesthesia documentation requirements.
Categories of user-entered documentation with selected examples
In the event of an adverse outcome, handwritten documents that retrospectively go into unusually increased detail May inadvertently lead to increased suspicion of the accuracy of the detail.
Recordation considers each anesthetic documentation to be of the highest value regardless of the clinical outcome of the surgical or anaesthetic. With this in mind, our goal is to give documentation credit where credit is due. For example, in placing the patient in the prone position, it is easy to reflect the practitioners customary practice habits in the documentation such as
Similarly , from the simplest to the most complicated anesthetic techniques such as the placement of an intravenous catheter or pulmonary artery catheter or brachial plexus block, recordation provides customized Wizards that reflect accurately any level of detail that the practitioner chooses.
The speed of handwritten documentation ultimately is dependent upon and effected by the quality of documentation. Handwriting is extremely flexible; it’s inexpensive, universal, and with the same pen one can write words, draw pictures and symbols at any time on the paper.
Computers in some ways impose limitations upon what/when/where data can be entered into a system; in other ways, well-written software can improve the quality and decrease the effort involved in inputtng information in lieu of handwriting. For example, handwritten signatures can be added to paper documents at any time without validation, but computerized signature authentication occurs in real-time. In contrast, one computer gesture can add many elements of documentation at the same time.
The reality of medical practice today is that more burdensome documentation is being required by regulatory agencies, insurance bodies and reimbursementers, and that very little usable information can be easily obtained by analyzing handwritten records.
The problem with anesthesia handwritten documentation is that after years of writing repetitive phrases and graphing blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen saturation symbols, anesthesia practitioners may fatigue, and this usually results in legal documentation that is typically more difficult to read or in some cases illegible; shortcuts may be taken, or skipping important elements of the document. This may be intentional or unintentional.
There are many well-established anesthesia practitioners who maintain fastidious in written documentation habits . Nonetheless, the burdensome nature of handwritten documentation is at the very least an unprodictive use of the practitioner’s resources and may even detract from direct patient care.
the more pressing reality is that Regulatory Agencies are requiring increased increasingly detailed documentation of routine and extraordinary care. At the same time, pressures from many surgical facilities two increase patient throughput decrease the amount of time available for the practitioner to fulfil documentation obligations.
some of these documentation requirements Maybe facilitated by the use of paper records with check boxes . and other data entry facilitators. Unfortunately, these handwritten records become crammed with many possibly unchecked boxes or they failed to allow easy entry of required documentation elements.
Recordation has designed its interface specifically to facilitate the accurate entry of meaningful information with as few practitioner interactions as possible. Commonly documented events such as and a tracheal intubation or the placement of regional anesthetics or monitoring lines have been given dedicated Wizards that allow both accurate and facilitated entry of routine data end allow for customization from practitioner to practitioner or within a certain Department.
Additionally, we listen for user feedback to improve all elements of data capture to more closely match the anesthesia workflow and decrease the amount of time spent entering meaningful information. All of our Wizards and macros are customized for individual departments.
Finally, recordation has performed tens of thousands of hours of usability testing with simultaneous use of the written record and the electronic record and has successfully used the feedback of members of the anesthesia Healthcare team to improve its offerings.
While there is no computer interface that will fulfill every practitioners needs, we try strive to make our product better as quickly as possible based on how are users experience.
for anyone that can show us that his over handwritten documentation is superior , please let us know and we will try to incorporate those elements into our system and save you the handwriting.
Many anesthesia health care professionals will continue and finish their careers without using an AIMS. However, most Ambulatory Surgery Centers and Community Hospitals are already in the process of considering ways of using perioperative data to increase patient safety, understand operating costs and decide which anesthesia health care professionals are most cost effective.
Many anesthesia groups are seeing the advantages of gaining access to data and managing their practices to their advantage.
It is difficult to convince an anesthesia practitioner who has never used an anesthesia recording system and established or group to decide two adapt computer technology into their practice. however, there are typically two paths that the modern-day anesthesiologist will follow .
The first Common path is that an anesthesia practitioner who is especially interested in technology or the use of computers in anesthesia will either investigate products that are available or he or she will call on his or her or colleagues experience with systems currently on the market. Next, the group a designated leader will consider budgets and or discuss the possibility with the facility’s administration. Because there are numerous products available and there are many considerations that will influence the final decision, the implementation of this technology often takes a long time. For these reasons, recordation offers a low Capital outlay path two adopt anesthesia Recording Technology relatively quickly . we have had installations that can take 1 to 2 weeks from the acquisition of Hardware to go live day.
Electronic anesthesia recording systems can be expensive, and represent a significant capital outlay and lengthy time to deployment; these factors have become a hinderance to the adoption of electronic anesthesia records in general. Expenses depend upon many factors including hardware, electronic communication within the facility and between desparate vendor systems and patient equipment, deployment, customization and licensng and maintenance. Despite these costs, functionality may vary between vendors.
These costs should be taken into consideration when anticipating the adoption of any recording system. Recordation has made affordability a primary focus in its offerings. Firstly, we use only off-the-shelf Hardware Microsoft Windows-based hardware that can be purchased through major online retailers or electronics stores. Secondly, because our software runs in the Windows 10 Professional operating system, our choice of hardware for factors and platforms is flexible.
Thirdly, Recordation performs the installation and configuration process itself and requires and requests minimal assistance from a facility’s Information Technology Department. Requirements include:
Once the hardware and network and network access are established, configuration can be completed remotely or on-site. This greatly reduces startup expenses, and depending on the number of operating rooms, can significantly reduce the time to Go Live.
Recordation offers Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) business model which allows the user two use our software on a monthly basis for a comparatively low price and without contractual obligation. The only initial capital outlay is the facility’s purchase of hardware, the establishment of network access, and a deposit to cover installation and on-site training.
Recordation specialists are always available to discuss possible installations and expenses.
Recordation Perioperative Information Systems
30 Boston Post Road
Wayland, MA 01778
Copyright © 2017 by Recordation, Inc. All rights reserved.