The impact of PACS on clinician work practices in the intensive care unit: a systematic review of the literature

Objective To assess evidence of the impact of Picture Archiving and Communication Systems (PACS) on clinicians' work practices in the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods We searched Medline, Pre-Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and the SPIE Digital Library databases for English-language publications between 1980 and September 2010 using Medical Subject Headings terms and keywords. Results Eleven studies from the USA and UK were included. All studies measured aspects of time associated with the introduction of PACS, namely the availability of images, the time a physician took to review an image, and changes in viewing patterns. Seven studies examined the impact on clinical decision-making, with the majority measuring the time to image-based clinical action. The effect of PACS on communication modes was reported in five studies. Discussion PACS can impact on clinician work practices in three main areas. Most of the evidence suggests an improvement in the efficiency of work practices. Quick image availability can impact on work associated with clinical decision-making, although the results were inconsistent. PACS can change communication practices, particularly between the ICU and radiology; however, the evidence base is insufficient to draw firm conclusions in this area. Conclusion The potential for PACS to impact positively on clinician work practices in the ICU and improve patient care is great. However, the evidence base is limited and does not reflect aspects of contemporary PACS technology. Performance measures developed in previous studies remain relevant, with much left to investigate to understand how PACS can support new and improved ways of delivering care in the intensive care setting.8 page(s

Do computerised clinical decision support systems for prescribing change practice? A systematic review of the literature (1990-2007)

Computerised clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are used widely to improve quality of care and patient outcomes. This systematic review evaluated the impact of CDSSs in targeting specific aspects of prescribing, namely initiating, monitoring and stopping therapy. We also examined the influence of clinical setting (institutional vs ambulatory care), system- or user-initiation of CDSS, multi-faceted vs stand alone CDSS interventions and clinical target on practice changes in line with the intent of the CDSS. We searched Medline, Embase and PsychINFO for publications from 1990-2007 detailing CDSS prescribing interventions. Pairs of independent reviewers extracted the key features and prescribing outcomes of methodologically adequate studies (experiments and strong quasi-experiments). 56 studies met our inclusion criteria, 38 addressing initiating, 23 monitoring and three stopping therapy. At the time of initiating therapy, CDSSs appear to be somewhat more effective after, rather than before, drug selection has occurred (7/12 versus 12/26 studies reporting statistically significant improvements in favour of CDSSs on = 50% of prescribing outcomes reported). CDSSs also appeared to be effective for monitoring therapy, particularly using laboratory test reminders (4/7 studies reporting significant improvements in favour of CDSSs on the majority of prescribing outcomes). None of the studies addressing stopping therapy demonstrated impacts in favour of CDSSs over comparators. The most consistently effective approaches used system-initiated advice to fine-tune existing therapy by making recommendations to improve patient safety, adjust the dose, duration or form of prescribed drugs or increase the laboratory testing rates for patients on long-term therapy. CDSSs appeared to perform better in institutional compared to ambulatory settings and when decision support was initiated automatically by the system as opposed to user initiation. CDSSs implemented with other strategies such as education were no more successful in improving prescribing than stand alone interventions. Cardiovascular disease was the most studied clinical target but few studies demonstrated significant improvements on the majority of prescribing outcomes. Our understanding of CDSS impacts on specific aspects of the prescribing process remains relatively limited. Future implementation should build on effective approaches including the use of system-initiated advice to address safety issues and improve the monitoring of therapy

Innovation in intensive care nursing work practices with PACS

Doctors are the main users of x-rays and other medical images in hospitals and as such picture archive and communication systems (PACS) have been designed to improve their work processes and clinical care by providing them with faster access to images. Nurses working in intensive care units (ICUs) also access images as an integral part of their work, yet no studies have examined the impact of PACS on the work of intensive care nurses. Our study aimed to examine whether and how ICU nurses view and use images and whether access to PACS promotes innovation in work practices. We interviewed (n=49) and observed (n=23) nurses in three Australian metropolitan teaching hospital ICUs with varying degrees of PACS implementation. Our study found that nurses with access to PACS were able to independently and easily access images, did so more frequently when required, and perceived that this had the potential to positively impact upon patient safety. Those without PACS usually viewed images more traditionally as part of a ward round. The introduction of PACS to ICU settings promotes changes in nursing work practices by providing nurses with the ability to act more autonomously, with the potential to enhance patient care.5 page(s

Does PACS facilitate work practice innovation in the intensive care unit?

Picture Archiving and Communication Systems (PACS) allow the fast delivery of imaging studies to clinicians at the point-of-care, supporting quicker decision-making. PACS has the potential to have a significant impact in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) where critical decisions are made on a daily basis, particularly during ward rounds. We aimed to examine how accessing image information is integrated into ward rounds and if the presence of PACS produced innovations in ward round practices. We observed ward rounds and conducted interviews with ICU doctors at three hospitals with differing levels of PACS availability and computerization. Imaging results were infrequently viewed by clinicians during ward rounds in two ICUs: one without PACS and one which had both PACS and bedside computers. In the third ICU, where PACS was only available at a central workstation, images were frequently viewed throughout the daily round and integrated into decisions about patient care. The presence of bedside computers does not automatically result in innovations to work practice. Despite the ability to utilize PACS at the bedside to support decision-making, use was varied. Research to understand how the complexities and context of the ICU contribute to work practice innovation and why practice changes differ is required.5 page(s

Non-emergency patient transport : what are the quality and safety issues? : a systematic review

Patient transportation is an important component of health-care delivery; however, the quality and safety issues relating to non-emergency patient transport services have rarely been discussed compared with the transport of emergency patients. This systematic review examines the factors associated with the quality and safety of non-emergency transport services. Medline, Pre-Medline, CINAHL and Embase databases were searched for publications between 1990 and September 2009. Articles investigating non-emergency hospital transport services. Study characteristic and outcome data were abstracted by one author and reviewed by a second and third author. Twelve articles from seven countries were included. Five studies examined issues relating to the structure of transport services, which focused on the use of policies and protocols to assist the transfer process. All studies addressed factors associated with the transfer process such as communication, appropriateness of personnel, time to arrange transfers, and the safety and efficiency of the process. Outcomes were measured in one study. Communication, efficiency and appropriateness are key factors that are advanced as impacting on the quality and safety of non-emergency transport services. Standardization of the non-emergency transport process shows promise in reducing risk and increasing efficiency. Applying information and communication technology to improve the quality of transport services has received little attention despite its potential benefits. Patient outcomes in relation to quality and safety of transport services are rarely measured. Available evidence suggests that safety of non-emergency patient transfers is sometimes compromised due to poor standardization and failures in communication processes.8 page(s

Standardizing care in medical oncology: Are web-based systems the answer?

BACKGROUND: Medical oncology is embracing information technology to standardize care and improve patient outcomes, with a range of Web-based systems used internationally. The authors' aim was to determine the factors affecting the uptake and use of a Web-based protocol system for medical oncology in the Australian setting. METHODS: The authors conducted 50 interviews and observed medical oncology physicians, nurses, and pharmacists in their treatment setting at 6 hospitals in different geographic locations. RESULTS: The Web-based system plays a major role in guiding oncology treatment across participating sites. However, its use varies according to hospital location, clinician roles, and experience. A range of issues impact on clinicians' attitudes toward and use of the Web-based system. Important factors are clinician-specific (eg, their need for autonomy and perceptions of lack of time) or environmental (eg, hospital policy on protocol use, endorsement of the system, and the availability of appropriate infrastructure, such as sufficient computers). The level of education received regarding the system was also found to be integral to its ongoing use. CONCLUSIONS: Although the provision of high-quality evidence-based resources, electronic or otherwise, is essential for standardizing care and improving patient outcomes, the authors' findings demonstrate that this alone does not ensure uptake. It is important to understand end-users, the environment in which they operate, and the basic infrastructure required to implement such a system. Implementation must also be accompanied by continuing education and endorsement to ensure both long-term sustainability and use of the system to its full potential

What do ICU doctors do? A multisite time and motion study of the clinical work patterns of registrars

Objective: To quantify the time that intensive care unit registrars spend on different work tasks with other health professionals and patients and using information resources, and to compare them with those of clinicians in general wards and the emergency department (ED). Design, setting and participants: A prospective, observational time-and-motion study of two ICUs with a total of 71 beds at two major teaching hospitals in Sydney. Twenty-six registrars were observed between 08:00 and 18:00 on weekdays for a total of 160.52 hours. Main outcome measures: Proportions of time spent on different tasks, using specific information resources, working with other health professionals and patients, and rates of multitasking and interruptions. Results: A total of 12 043 distinct tasks were observed. Registrars spent 69.2% of time working at patients' bedsides, 49.6% in professional communication and 39.0% accessing information resources. Half of their time (53.8%) was spent with other ICU doctors and 29.2% with nurses. Compared with doctors and nurses on general wards, and doctors in the ED, ICU registrars were more likely to multitask (40.1 times/hour [24.4% of their time]). ICU registrars had a higher interruption rate than ward clinicians, (4.2 times/hour), but a lower rate than ED doctors. Conclusions: Face-to-face communication and information seeking consume a vast proportion of ICU registrars' time. Multitasking and handling frequent interruptions characterise their work, and such behaviours may create an increased risk of task errors. Electronic clinical information systems may be particularly beneficial in this information-rich environment.8 page(s

An ICU clinical information system - clinicians' expectations and perceptions of its impact

The Intensive Care Unit (ICU) is an information intense environment where Clinical Information Systems (CISs) can greatly impact patient care and the workload of clinicians. With the introduction of an ICU CIS imminent across New South Wales hospitals, we aimed to understand how ICU clinicians perceived a new system would impact on work practices in Australian ICUs, as much of the current evidence is generated from overseas. We conducted interviews with 66 doctors and nurses in 3 ICUs without a CIS. Many had positive perceptions regarding the impact of its introduction, though others were more guarded and unsure. Clinicians believed information access to patient would improve, communication processes could potentially change and there was potential for work processes to be more efficient. It was expected that ward rounds and handover would be less disrupted with all information available at the bedside or at the handover setting. There were mixed responses about whether a CIS would save time and how it would influence patient care, though the majority believed a CIS would improve safety by providing a means for increasing accountability and reducing medication errors. Concerns were raised about the transition from paper to a CIS and the training required. This information provides valuable evidence in the Australian setting regarding clinicians' expectations of a new ICU CIS to assist with future implementations. It also provides baseline data as a foundation for future research once the CIS is implemented. It is clear that robust quantitative studies are required to gain a detailed understanding of how a new CIS will impact clinicians' work processes and that appropriate training is crucial for full benefits to be achieved.7 page(s

Computerized clinical decision support for prescribing: provision does not guarantee uptake

There is wide variability in the use and adoption of recommendations generated by computerized clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) despite the benefits they may bring to clinical practice. We conducted a systematic review to explore the barriers to, and facilitators of, CDSS uptake by physicians to guide prescribing decisions. We identified 58 studies by searching electronic databases (1990–2007). Factors impacting on CDSS use included: the availability of hardware, technical support and training; integration of the system into workflows; and the relevance and timeliness of the clinical messages. Further, systems that were endorsed by colleagues, minimized perceived threats to professional autonomy, and did not compromise doctor-patient interactions were accepted by users. Despite advances in technology and CDSS sophistication, most factors were consistently reported over time and across ambulatory and institutional settings. Such factors must be addressed when deploying CDSSs so that improvements in uptake, practice and patient outcomes may be achieved