| Feature |
Handwritten Record |
Electronic Record |
| Legibility |
Frequently poor |
Very good |
| Accuracy |
Suboptimal- subject to clinician bias: “smoothing”, averaging or omission of abnormal values |
Excellent- must correct artifactual data and watch for missing data |
| Completeness |
Suboptimal and difficult to control. Structured (template) format will improve legibility and completeness but constrained by space considerations |
Excellent- user interface can prompt or require essential data points; some other data is completed automatically (e.g. patient information, surgeon’s name) or captured (e.g.physiological variables) |
| Medico-legal Factors |
Can be an asset if complete, legible and accurate. Bias remains problematic. |
Favourable due to completeness and accuracy. Concerns about artifactual recordings have not been borne out. No evidence that the AIMS increases medico-legal exposure |
| Ease of Use |
Simple. Ease of use depends on design of user interface |
Well-designed system has the potential to be convenient and time-saving for the user |
| Cost |
Inexpensive |
Expensive to install and maintain. May reap some “Return on Investment” e.g. tracking drug-related costs and disposables. |
| Complexity |
Simple |
Requires a high initial and ongoing commitment to user training. Requires maintenance and technical support. Must be interfaced with other institutional systems |
| Value Adds |
Limited |
Myriad: convenient data base for research, quality assurance; seamless billing, archiving and communication applications. May have role in guiding care, e.g. user prompts. |
