Resident Documentation Discrepancies in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

Author:

Carroll Aaron E.12,Tarczy-Hornoch Peter23,O’Reilly Eamon1234,Christakis Dimitri A.24

Affiliation:

1. Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

2. Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

3. Division of Biomedical Informatics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

4. Child Health Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Abstract

Context. Medical errors are common and potentially dangerous. Little is known about the role of documentation errors. Objective. To determine the proportion of resident physician progress notes that contained discrepancies, and to identify predictors of such discrepancies. Design/Methods. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional chart review of resident physician progress notes over 40 random days in a 4-month period in a neonatal intensive care unit. Using predetermined criteria, we compared resident documentation of patient weights, medications, and vascular lines to other sources of information and recorded the numbers of documentation discrepancies. Results. There were discrepancies in 209 (61.7%) notes with respect to weight, vascular lines, or medications. Discrepancies occurred in the documentation of medications in 103 (27.7%) progress notes, of vascular lines in 119 (33.9%) progress notes, and of weights in 45 (13.3%) progress notes. Notes both omitted information regarding medications (18.2%) and vascular lines (13.9%) and documented inaccurate information regarding medications (18.6%) and vascular lines (30.1%). Patients with more medications or vascular lines, and with longer lengths of stay, were significantly more likely to have higher rates of documentation errors. Conclusions. Daily progress notes written by resident physicians in the neonatal intensive care unit often contain inaccurate, or omit pertinent, information. Alternative means or methods of documentation are warranted.

Publisher

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)

Subject

Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3