Search

Objective: There are concerns that structured electronic documentation systems can limit expressivity and encourage long and unreadable notes. We assessed the impact of an electronic clinical documentation system on the quality of admission notes for patients admitted to a general medical unit.Methods: This was a prospective randomized crossover study comparing handwritten paper notes to electronic notes on different patients by the same author, generated using a semistructured electronic admission documentation system over a 2-month period in 2014. The setting was a 4-team, 80-bed general internal medicine clinical teaching unit at a large urban academic hospital. The quality of clinical documentation was assessed using the QNOTE instrument (best possible score = 100), and word counts were assessed for free-text sections of notes.Results: Twenty-one electronic-paper note pairs (42 notes) written by 21 authors were randomly drawn from a pool of 303 eligible notes. Overall note quality was significantly higher in electronic vs paper notes (mean 90 vs 69, P Conclusions: An electronic admission documentation system improved both the quality of free-text content and the overall quality of admission notes. Authors wrote more in the free-text sections of electronic documents as compared to paper versions.

Objective To assess the state of readiness for the adoption of paperless labeling among a nationally representative sample of pharmacies, including chain pharmacies, independent retail pharmacies, hospitals, and other rural or urban dispensing sites. Methods Both quantitative and qualitative analyses were used to analyze responses to a cross-sectional survey disseminated to American Pharmacists Association pharmacists nationwide. The survey assessed factors related to pharmacists' attitudinal readiness (ie, perceptions of impact) and pharmacies' structural readiness (eg, availability of electronic resources, internet access) for the paperless labeling initiative. Results We received a total of 436 survey responses (6% response rate) from pharmacists representing 44 US states and territories. Across the spectrum of settings we studied, pharmacists had work access to computers, printers, fax machines and access to the internet or intranet. Approximately 79% of respondents believed that the initiative would improve the adequacy of drug information available in their work site and 95% believed it would either not change (33%) or would improve (62%) communication to patients. Overall, respondents' comments supported advancing the initiative; however, some comments revealed reservations regarding corporate or pharmacy buy-in, success of implementation, and ease of adoption. Conclusions This is the first nationwide study to report about pharmacists' perspectives on paperless labeling. In general, pharmacists believe they are ready and that their pharmacies are well equipped for the transition to paperless labeling. Further exploration of perspectives from product label manufacturers and corporate pharmacy offices is needed to understand fully what will be necessary to complete this transition.