Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2011 Nov-Dec;18(6):835-41.
doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000221. Epub 2011 Aug 4.

Point-of-care clinical documentation: assessment of a bladder cancer informatics tool (eCancerCareBladder): a randomized controlled study of efficacy, efficiency and user friendliness compared with standard electronic medical records

Peter J Bostrom  1 , Paul J Toren, Hao Xi, Raymond Chow, Tran Truong, Justin Liu, Kelly Lane, Laura Legere, Anjum Chagpar, Alexandre R Zlotta, Antonio Finelli, Neil E Fleshner, Ethan D Grober, Michael A S Jewett
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Point-of-care clinical documentation: assessment of a bladder cancer informatics tool (eCancerCareBladder): a randomized controlled study of efficacy, efficiency and user friendliness compared with standard electronic medical records

Peter J Bostrom et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011 Nov-Dec.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the use of structured reporting software and the standard electronic medical records (EMR) in the management of patients with bladder cancer. The use of a human factors laboratory to study management of disease using simulated clinical scenarios was also assessed.

Design: eCancerCare(Bladder) and the EMR were used to retrieve data and produce clinical reports. Twelve participants (four attending staff, four fellows, and four residents) used either eCancerCare(Bladder) or the EMR in two clinical scenarios simulating cystoscopy surveillance visits for bladder cancer follow-up.

Measurements: Time to retrieve and quality of review of the patient history; time to produce and completeness of a cystoscopy report. Finally, participants provided a global assessment of their computer literacy, familiarity with the two systems, and system preference.

Results: eCancerCare(Bladder) was faster for data retrieval (scenario 1: 146 s vs 245 s, p=0.019; scenario 2: 306 vs 415 s, NS), but non-significantly slower to generate a clinical report. The quality of the report was better in the eCancerCare(Bladder) system (scenario 1: p<0.001; scenario 2: p=0.11). User satisfaction was higher with the eCancerCare(Bladder) system, and 11/12 participants preferred to use this system.

Limitations: The small sample size affected the power of our study to detect differences.

Conclusions: Use of a specific data management tool does not appear to significantly reduce user time, but the results suggest improvement in the level of care and documentation and preference by users. Also, the use of simulated scenarios in a laboratory setting appears to be a valid method for comparing the usability of clinical software.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Screen shots of data entry field (upper panel), clinical data summarization as a ‘timeline’ image (lower panel) and a clinical note/letter (next page) in eCancerCareBladder.
Figure 1
Figure 1
Screen shots of data entry field (upper panel), clinical data summarization as a ‘timeline’ image (lower panel) and a clinical note/letter (next page) in eCancerCareBladder.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Study flow chart.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Average times to complete chart review and clinical note.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Number of correct answers to questions about bladder cancer history.
Figure 5
Figure 5
User satisfaction assessment scores from post-study questionnaire.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Ferlay J, Bray F, Pisani P, et al. GLOBOCAN 2002: Cancer incidence, Mortality and Prevalence Worldwide. IARC Cancer base No5, version 1.0. International Agency for Research on cancer; http://www-dep.iarc.fr
    1. Pasin E, Josephson D, Mitra A, et al. Superficial bladder cancer: an update on etiology, molecular development, classification, and natural history. Rev Urol 2008;10:31–43 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Stenzl A, Hennenlotter J, Schilling D. Can we still afford bladder cancer? Curr Opin Urol 2008;18:488–92 - PubMed
    1. Nygren E, Wyatt J, Wright P. Helping clinicians to find data and avoid delays. Lancet 1998;352:1462–6 - PubMed
    1. Novitsky Y, Sing R, Kercher K, et al. Prospective, blinded evaluation of accuracy of operative reports dictated by surgical residents. Am Surg 2005;71:627–31; discussion 31–2. - PubMed

Publication types