Aim： To improve workflow and usability by introduction of a new electronic patient record （EPR） and database. Methods： Establishment of an EPR based on open source technology （MySQL database and PI-IP scripting l...Aim： To improve workflow and usability by introduction of a new electronic patient record （EPR） and database. Methods： Establishment of an EPR based on open source technology （MySQL database and PI-IP scripting language） in a tertiary care andrology center at a university clinic. Workflow analysis, a benchmark comparing the two systems and a survey for usability and ergonomics were carried out. Results： Workflow optimizations （electronic ordering of laboratory analysis, elimination of transcription steps and automated referral letters） and the decrease in time required for data entry per patient to 71% ± 27%, P 〈 0.05, lead to a workload reduction. The benchmark showed a significant performance increase （highest with starting the respective system： 1.3 ± 0.2 s vs. 11.1 ± 0.2 s, mean ± SD）. In the survey, users rated the new system at least two ranks higher over its predecessor （P 〈 0.01） in all sub-areas. Conclusion： With further improvements, today＇s EPR can evolve to substitute paper records, saving time （and possibly costs）, supporting user satisfaction and expanding the basis for scientific evaluation when more data is electronically available. Newly introduced systems should be versatile, adaptable for users, and workflow-oriented to yield the highest benefit. If ready-made software is purchased, customization should be implemented during rollout. （Asian J Andro12006 Mar; 8： 235-241）展开更多
文摘Aim： To improve workflow and usability by introduction of a new electronic patient record （EPR） and database. Methods： Establishment of an EPR based on open source technology （MySQL database and PI-IP scripting language） in a tertiary care andrology center at a university clinic. Workflow analysis, a benchmark comparing the two systems and a survey for usability and ergonomics were carried out. Results： Workflow optimizations （electronic ordering of laboratory analysis, elimination of transcription steps and automated referral letters） and the decrease in time required for data entry per patient to 71% ± 27%, P 〈 0.05, lead to a workload reduction. The benchmark showed a significant performance increase （highest with starting the respective system： 1.3 ± 0.2 s vs. 11.1 ± 0.2 s, mean ± SD）. In the survey, users rated the new system at least two ranks higher over its predecessor （P 〈 0.01） in all sub-areas. Conclusion： With further improvements, today＇s EPR can evolve to substitute paper records, saving time （and possibly costs）, supporting user satisfaction and expanding the basis for scientific evaluation when more data is electronically available. Newly introduced systems should be versatile, adaptable for users, and workflow-oriented to yield the highest benefit. If ready-made software is purchased, customization should be implemented during rollout. （Asian J Andro12006 Mar; 8： 235-241）
