European Journal of Internal Medicine
Volume 18, Issue 4 , Pages 321-325, July 2007

Computerized endoscopic reporting is no more time-consuming than reporting with conventional methods

  • Jagdiesh K. Soekhoe

      Affiliations

    • Department of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology, Ikazia Hospital, Montessoriweg 1, 3083 AN, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • ,
  • Marcel J.M. Groenen

      Affiliations

    • Department of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology, Ikazia Hospital, Montessoriweg 1, 3083 AN, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    • Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus Medical Center, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Department of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology, Ikazia Hospital Rotterdam, Montessoriweg 1, 3083 AN, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 10 2975136; fax: +31 10 4859959.
  • ,
  • Astrid M. van Ginneken

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medical Informatics, Erasmus Medical Center, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • ,
  • G. Khaliq

      Affiliations

    • Department of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology, Ikazia Hospital, Montessoriweg 1, 3083 AN, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • ,
  • Wilco Lesterhuis

      Affiliations

    • Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, P.O. Box 444, 3300 AK Dordrecht, The Netherlands
  • ,
  • Antonie J.P. van Tilburg

      Affiliations

    • Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Sint Franciscus Gasthuis, Kleiweg 500, 3045 PM, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • ,
  • Rob J.Th. Ouwendijk

      Affiliations

    • Department of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology, Ikazia Hospital, Montessoriweg 1, 3083 AN, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Received 28 July 2006 published online 26 May 2007.

Abstract 

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.

Keywords: Gastrointestinal endoscopy, Database, Medical records systems, computerized, Workload, Organization and administration, Time management

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0953-6205(07)00081-7

doi:10.1016/j.ejim.2007.04.001

European Journal of Internal Medicine
Volume 18, Issue 4 , Pages 321-325, July 2007