This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Egger Halbeis, C. B. Articles by Grunwald, Z. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Egger Halbeis, C. B. Articles by Grunwald, Z. Related Collections Economics and Health Care Research Technology

---

ECONOMICS, EDUCATION, AND POLICY

Adoption of Anesthesia Information Management Systems by Academic Departments in the United States

Christoph B. Egger Halbeis, MD, DEAA, MBA^*, Richard H. Epstein, MD, CHPIMS, Alex Macario, MD, MBA^*, Ronald G. Pearl, MD, PhD^*, and Zvi Grunwald, MD

From the *Department of Anesthesiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; and Department of Anesthesiology, Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Christoph B. Egger Halbeis, MD, DEAA, MBA, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA 94305. Address e-mail to cbeh{at}stanford.edu.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Information technology has been promoted as a way to improve patient care and outcomes. Whereas information technology systems for ancillary hospital services (e.g., radiology, pharmacy) are deployed commonly, it has been estimated that anesthesia information management systems (AIMS) are only installed in a small fraction of United States (US) operating rooms. In this study, we assessed the adoption of AIMS at academic anesthesia departments and explored the motivations for and resistance to AIMS adoption.

METHODS: Members of the Society of Academic Anesthesiology Chairs and the Association of Anesthesiology Program Directors were solicited by e-mail to participate in an online survey of AIMS adoption. Two months after closing the survey, another e-mail was sent with a single question asking for an update to their AIMS implementation status.

RESULTS: Surveys were fully completed by 48 (34%) of the 140 Society of Academic Anesthesiology Chairs and Association of Anesthesiology Program Directors departments surveyed, with 72 (51%) providing AIMS status information. Twenty of these 72 departments have an AIMS installed, 12 are currently implementing, 11 have selected but not yet installed, and 18 are planning to purchase an AIMS in 2008 or 2009. Therefore, at least 61 (44%) of all 140 US academic anesthesia departments have committed to AIMS. This estimated adoption rate is conservative because the numerator equals the affirmative responses, whereas the denominator equals the total population of academic departments. Among adopters, the top ranked anticipated benefits from installing an AIMS included improved clinical documentation, improved data collection for clinical research, enhancement of quality improvement programs, and compliance with requirements of regulatory authorities. The hospital provided funding in almost all facilities (90%), with co-funding by the anesthesia group in 35%.

CONCLUSIONS: At least 61 or 44% of the 140 US academic departments surveyed in this study have already implemented, are planning to acquire, or are currently searching for an AIMS. Adoption of AIMS technology appears to have reached sufficient momentum within academic anesthesiology departments to result in a fundamental change.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. H. Lipschutz, J. T. Mueller, T. L. Trentman, I. D. Miziara, A. K. Jha, C. DesRoches, and S. Rosenbaum Electronic health records in hospitals. N. Engl. J. Med., July 23, 2009; 361(4): 421 - 422. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Macario Truth in Scheduling: Is It Possible to Accurately Predict How Long a Surgical Case Will Last? Anesth. Analg., March 1, 2009; 108(3): 681 - 685. [Full Text] [PDF]