Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Effect of the Implementation of a New Electronic Health Record System on Surgical Case Turnover Time

  • Mobile & Wireless Health
  • Published:
Journal of Medical Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many health care providers, hospitals, and hospital systems have adopted new electronic health records (EHR) to streamline patient care and comply with government mandates. Commercial EHR vendors advertise improved efficiency, but few studies have been performed to validate these claims. Therefore, this study was performed to evaluate the effect of deploying a new EHR system on operating room efficiency and surgical case turnover time (TOT) at our institution. Data on TOT were collected after implementation of a new EHR (Epic) from June 2015 to May 2016, which replaced a legacy system of both paper and electronic records. These TOTs were compared to data from the same months in the preceding year. Mean TOT and standard deviations were calculated. The two-sample t-test was used to compare means by month and the F-test was used to compare standard deviations. There was a significant increase in TOT (63.0 vs. 53.0 min, p < 0.001) in the first month after implementation. This improved by the second month (59.0 vs. 53.0 min, p < 0.001), but the relative increase persisted until the end of the fifth month after which it remained around the pre-implementation baseline until the end of the study. The standard deviation significantly decreased after the fourth month post-implementation and persisted throughout the studied period. We found that implementation of an EHR led to a significant decrease in efficiency that persisted for five months. While EHRs have the potential to improve hospital workflow, caution is advised in the case of operating room implementation. While the mean TOT did not improve beyond the pre-implementation baseline, the standard deviation was significantly improved after the first four months.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Blumenthal, D., and Tavenner, M., The “meaningful use” regulation for electronic health records. N. Engl. J. Med., 2010. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1006114.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Electronic Health Records (EHR) Incentive Programs. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Available at: https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/index.html?redirect=/EHRIncentivePrograms/. Accessed 5 November 2016.

  3. Fowles, J. B., Kind, E. A., Awwad, S., Weiner, J. P., Chan, K. S., Coon, P. J. et al., Performance measures using electronic health records: five case studies. The Commonwealth Fund 46, 2008. Available at: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2008/may/performance-measures-using-electronic-health-records--five-case-studies. Accessed 19 January 2017.

  4. Elson, R.B., and Connelly, D.P., Computerized patient records in primary care: their role in mediating guideline-driven physician behavior change. Arch. Fam. Med. 4:698–705, 1995.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hunt, D.L., Haynes, R.B., Hanna, S.E., and Smith, K., Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA. 280:1339–1346, 1998.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. O’Connor, P.J., Crain, A.L., Rush, W.A., Sperl-Hillen, J.M., Gutenkauf, J.J., and Duncan, J.E., Impact of an electronic medical record on diabetes quality of care. Ann. Fam. Med. 3:300–306, 2005.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Feldstein, A., Elmer, P.J., Smith, D.H., Herson, M., Orwoll, E., Chen, C., et al., Electronic medical record reminder improves osteoporosis management after a fracture: a randomized, controlled trial. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 54:450–457, 2006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kullar, R., Goff, D.A., Schulz, L.T., Fox, B.C., and Rose, W.E., The “epic” challenge of optimizing antimicrobial stewardship: the role of electronic medical records and technology. Clin. Infect. Dis. 57:1005–1013, 2013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hillestad, R., Bigelow, J., Bower, A., Girosi, F., Meili, R., Scoville, R., et al., Can electronic medical record systems transform health care? Potential health benefits, savings, and costs. Health Aff. 24:1103–1117, 2005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wang, S.J., Middleton, B., Prosser, L.A., Bardon, C.G., Spurr, C.D., Carchidi, P.J., et al., A cost-benefit analysis of electronic medical records in primary care. Am. J. Med. 114:397–403, 2003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hartswood, M., Procter, R., Rouncefield, M., and Slack, R., Making a case in medical work: implications for the electronic medical record. Comput. Supported Coop. Work. 12:241–266, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Crowson, M.G., Vail, C., and Eapen, R.J., Influence of electronic medical record implementation on provider retirement at a major academic medical Centre. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 22:222–226, 2016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Forster, M., Bailey, C., Brinkhof, M.W.G., Graber, C., Boulle, A., Spohr, M., et al., Electronic medical record systems, data quality and loss to follow-up: survey of antiretroviral therapy programmes in resource-limited settings. Bull. World Health Organ. 86:939–947, 2008.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Walker, J., Pan, E., Johnston, D., Adler-Milstein, J., Bates, D.W., and Middleton, B., The value of health care information exchange and interoperability. Health Aff. (Millwood)., 2005. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.w5.10.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gordon, T., Paul, S., Lyles, A., and Fountain, J., Surgical unit time utilization review: resource utilization and management implications. J. Med. Syst. 12:169–179, 1988.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Eijkemans, M.J.C., van Houdenhoven, M., Nguyen, T., Boersma, E., Steyerberg, E.W., and Kazemier, G., Predicting the unpredictable. Anesthesiology. 112:41–49, 2010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Peltokorpi, A., How do strategic decisions and operative practices affect operating room productivity? Health Care Manag. Sci. 14:370–382, 2011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wright, J.G., Roche, A., and Khoury, A.E., Improving on time surgical starts in an operating room. Can. J. Surg. 53(3):167–170, 2010.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Donham, R.T., Defining measurable OR-PR scheduling, efficiency, and utilization data elements: the association of anesthesia clinical directors procedural times glossary. Int. Anesthesiol. Clin. 36:15, 1998.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Donham, R.T., Mazzei, W.J., and Jones, R.L., Association of anesthesia clinical directors’ procedural times glossary: glossary of times used for scheduling and monitoring of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Am. J. Anesthesiol. 23:3–12, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Wong, J., Khu, K.J., Kaderali, Z., and Bernstein, M., Delays in the operating room: signs of an imperfect system. Can. J. Surg. 53:189–195, 2010.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Mazzei, W.J., Operating room start times and turnover times in a university hospital. J. Clin. Anesth. 6:405–408, 1994.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Harders, M., Malangoni, M.A., Weight, S., and Sidhu, T., Improving operating room efficiency through process redesign. Surgery. 140:509–516, 2006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Vitez, T.S., and Macario, A., Setting performance standards for an anesthesia department. J. Clin. Anesth. 10:166–175, 1998.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wu, A., Kodali, B. S., Flanagan, H., Urman, R. D., Introduction of a new electronic medical system has mixed effects on first surgical case efficiency metrics. J. Clin. Monit. Comput. 2016.

  26. Wu, A., Brovman, E.Y., Whang, E.E., Ehrenfeld, J.M., and Urman, R.D., The impact of overestimations of surgical control times across multiple specialties on medical systems. J. Med. Syst. 40:95, 2016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kodali, B.S., Kim, K.D., Flanagan, H., Ehrenfeld, J.M., and Urman, R.D., Variability of subspecialty-specific anesthesia-controlled times at two academic institutions. J. Med. Syst. 38:11, 2014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard D. Urman.

Ethics declarations

Funding

No funding was received for this study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Statement of Human Rights

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Mobile & Wireless Health

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McDowell, J., Wu, A., Ehrenfeld, J.M. et al. Effect of the Implementation of a New Electronic Health Record System on Surgical Case Turnover Time. J Med Syst 41, 42 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-017-0690-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-017-0690-y

Keywords

Navigation