Download PDF
Appl Clin Inform 2013; 04(01): 61-74
DOI: 10.4338/ACI-2012-09-RA-0037
Research Article
Schattauer GmbH

Comparison of Manual versus Automated Data Collection Method for an Evidence-Based Nursing Practice Study

M.D. Byrne
1   Saint Catherine University, Nursing, Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States
,
T.R. Jordan
2   OptumInsight, Provider Consulting, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, United States
,
T. Welle
3   Saint Cloud Hospital, Clinical Utilization, Saint Cloud, Minnesota, United States
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received: 27 September 2012

accepted: 09 January 2013

Publication Date:
19 December 2017 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate and improve the use of automated data collection procedures for nursing research and quality assurance.

Methods: A descriptive, correlational study analyzed 44 orthopedic surgical patients who were part of an evidence-based practice (EBP) project examining post-operative oxygen therapy at a Midwestern hospital. The automation work attempted to replicate a manually-collected data set from the EBP project.

Results: Automation was successful in replicating data collection for study data elements that were available in the clinical data repository. The automation procedures identified 32 “false negative” patients who met the inclusion criteria described in the EBP project but were not selected during the manual data collection. Automating data collection for certain data elements, such as oxygen saturation, proved challenging because of workflow and practice variations and the reliance on disparate sources for data abstraction. Automation also revealed instances of human error including computational and transcription errors as well as incomplete selection of eligible patients.

Conclusion: Automated data collection for analysis of nursing-specific phenomenon is potentially superior to manual data collection methods. Creation of automated reports and analysis may require initial up-front investment with collaboration between clinicians, researchers and information technology specialists who can manage the ambiguities and challenges of research and quality assurance work in healthcare.

Citation: Byrne MD, Jordan TR, Welle T. Comparison of Manual versus Automated Data Collection Method for an Evidence-Based Nursing Practice Study. Appl Clin Inf 2013; 4: 61–74

http://dx.doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2012-09-RA-0037

Keywords

Automation - comparative study - data collection - evidence-based nursing - nursing methodology research
 

  • References

  • 1 Ferranti J, Horvath MM, Cozart H, Whitehurst J, Eckstrand J, Pietrobon R. et al. A multifaceted approach to safety: The synergistic detection of adverse drug events in adult inpatients. Journal of Patient Safety 2008; 4 (03) 184-190.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Inacio MC, Paxton EW, Chen Y, Harris J, Eck E, Barnes S. et al. Leveraging electronic medical records for surveillance of surgical site infection in a total joint replacement population. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011; 32 (04) 351-359.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Bakken S, Stone PW, Larson EL. A nursing informatics research agenda for 2008-18: Contextual influences and key components. Nurs Outlook 2008; 56 (05) 206 214.e3.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 McBride AB. Nursing and the informatics revolution. Nurs Outlook 2005; 53 (04) 183 191; discussion 192.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Lang NM. The promise of simultaneous transformation of practice and research with the use of clinical information systems. Nurs Outlook 2008; 56 (05) 232-236.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Kaplan B. Evaluating informatics applications some alternative approaches: Theory, social interactionism, and call for methodological pluralism. Int J Med Inform 2001; 64 (01) 39-56.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Keenan GM, Stocker JR, Geo-Thomas AT, Soparkar NR, Barkauskas VH, Lee JL. The HANDS project: Studying and refining the automated collection of a cross-setting clinical data set. Comput Inform Nurs 2002; 20 (03) 89-100.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Cho I, Park HA, Chung E. Exploring practice variation in preventive pressure-ulcer care using data from a clinical data repository. Int J Med Inform 201 80 (01) 47-55.
    PubMed
  • 9 Purvis S, Brenny-Fitzpatrick M. Innovative use of electronic health record reports by clinical nurse specialists. Clin Nurse Spec. 2010; 24 (06) 289-294.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 St. Cloud Hospital [Internet]. St. Cloud (MN): CentraCare Health System. [cited 2012 Nov 7]. Available from: http://www.centracare.com/hospitals/sch.
    PubMed
  • 11 Office Excel [CD-ROM]. Version 12. Redmond (WA): Microsoft Corporation; 2007
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 12 Hyperspace [CD-ROM]. Version 2010 IU2. Verona (WI): Epic Systems Corporation; 2010
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 13 Toad for Data Analysts [CD-ROM]. Version 3.1. Round Rock (TX): Dell Incorporated, Quest Software; 2012
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 14 Crystal Reports [CD-ROM]. Version 12. Walldorf (Germany): SAP AG Business Objects; 2008
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 15 SPSS Base [CD-ROM]. Version 14.0. Armonk (NY): IBM Corporation, SPSS; 2005
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 16 Pope D, Simonsohn U. Round numbers as goals: Evidence from baseball, SAT takers, and the lab. Psychol Sci 2011; 22 (01) 71-79.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Bhattacharya U, Holden CW, Jacobsen S. Penny wise, dollar foolish: Buy-sell imbalances on and around round numbers. Management Science 2012; 58 (02) 413-431.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Petrovskaya O, McIntyre M, McDonald C. Dilemmas, tetralemmas, reimagining the electronic health record. ANS Adv Nurs Sci 2009; 32 (03) 241-251.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Ash JS, Sittig DF, Campbell EM, Guappone KP, Dykstra RH. Some unintended consequences of clinical decision support systems. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2007: 26-30.
    PubMed
  • 20 Bonney W. Is it appropriate, or ethical, to use health data collected for the purpose of direct patient care to develop computerized predictive decision support tools?. Stud Health Technol Inform 2009; 143: 115-121.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Braaf S, Manias E, Riley R. The role of documents and documentation in communication failure across the perioperative pathway. A literature review. Int J Nurs Stud 2011; 48 (08) 1024-1038.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Elkin PL, Trusko BE, Koppel R, Speroff T, Mohrer D, Sakji S. et al. Secondary use of clinical data. Stud Health Technol Inform 2010; 155: 14-29.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Fadlalla AM, Golob J.J, Claridge JA. The surgical intensive care-infection registry: A research registry with daily clinical support capabilities. Am J Med Qual 2009; 24 (01) 29-34.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Salem H, Roth E, Fornango J. A comparison of automated data collection and manual data collection for toxicology studies. Arch Toxicol Suppl 1983; 6: 361-364.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Stewart WF, Shah NR, Selna MJ, Paulus RA, Walker JM. Bridging the inferential gap: The electronic health record and clinical evidence. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007; 26 (02) w181-w191.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Ledbetter CS, Morgan MW. Toward best practice: Leveraging the electronic patient record as a clinical data warehouse. J Healthc Inf Manag 2001; 15 (02) 119-131.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Cios KJ, Moore GW. Uniqueness of medical data mining. Artif Intell Med 2002; 26 1-2 1-24.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Ferranti JM, Langman MK, Tanaka D, McCall J, Ahmad A. Bridging the gap: Leveraging business intelligence tools in support of patient safety and financial effectiveness. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2010; 17 (02) 136-143.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Ash JS, Sittig DF, Dykstra RH, Guappone K, Carpenter JD, Seshadri V. Categorizing the unintended socio-technical consequences of computerized provider order entry. Int J Med Inf 2007; 76: 21-27.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Ash JS, Berg M, Coiera E. Some unintended consequences of information technology in health care: The nature of patient care information system-related errors. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2004; 11 (02) 104-112.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar