Computerized endoscopic reporting is no more time-consuming than reporting with conventional methods
European Journal of Internal Medicine , Volume 18 - Issue 4 p. 321- 325
Background: Endoscopists use different methods for reporting their findings after a gastrointestinal endoscopy. These may result in handwritten, dictated, or computerized reports. The time needed to create the report is an important parameter for acceptance of the method used. It is also important to be aware of the possible advantages and disadvantages of these different methods. The aim of this study was to compare time aspects of different methods of report writing. Methods: Three different methods of report writing, i.e., handwritten, dictated, and computerized, were compared. In three different endoscopy departments, one investigator recorded the time needed to compose the report and to send it to the referring doctor. The time needed to describe different diagnoses at endoscopy was compared between the systems. Results: Handwritten reports were completed in an average time of 113 s, free text dictated reports by the endoscopist in 65 s with an additional 172 s allowed for the typist, and computerized, pre-defined reports were completed in 86 s. The incidences of abnormalities found in the reports of the different hospitals were comparable. Conclusion: To a large extent, computerized, pre-defined reports could be composed in almost the same amount of time as handwritten and dictated reports. Free text dictated and computerized, pre-defined reports are both stored in the hospital information system, but only computerized, pre-defined reports including endoscopic pictures are stored in a structured database, which makes statistical analysis possible.
|, , , , ,|
|European Journal of Internal Medicine|
|Organisation||Erasmus MC: University Medical Center Rotterdam|
Soekhoe, J.K, Groenen, M.J.M, van Ginneken, A.M, Khaliq, G, Lesterhuis, W, van Tilburg, A.J.P, & Ouwendijk, R.J.T. (2007). Computerized endoscopic reporting is no more time-consuming than reporting with conventional methods. European Journal of Internal Medicine, 18(4), 321–325. doi:10.1016/j.ejim.2007.04.001