ArticleDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2022
[Employee survey after introduction of the FIDUS electronic patient file at the Saarland University Eye Hospital].
Article in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of Emergency Penetrating Keratoplasty with Cryopreserved Human Donor Corneas.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2024Article
- Leadership in ophthalmology training : Opportunities and risks of medical specialist education.Die Ophthalmologie · 2024Review
- Visual Impairment and Low Vision Aids-A Comparison between Children and Adults.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- [Leadership in ophthalmology training : Opportunities and risks of medical specialist education].Die Ophthalmologie · 2023Review
- The Impact of the First COVID-19 Lockdown Period on the Inpatient and Outpatient Volume of a University Based Tertiary Referral Center with Corneal Subspecialization in Germany.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study compared Saarland University Eye Hospital employees' satisfaction with the FIDUS electronic patient record between December 2016 and September 2020, after its introduction in January 2016.
methodsFor the retrospective study, the FIDUS team at the Saarland University Eye Hospital created a questionnaire which was distributed to all participants (physicians, nursing staff, and administrative staff) in December 2016 and September 2020. The questionnaire contained 19 questions, each scored from 0 to 10 (0: disagree; 5: partly agree; 10: completely agree).
resultsThe number of participants increased significantly from 60/136 (47%) to 89/140 (64%) between 2016 and 2020. Of these participants, 23 (25.8%) were physicians, 27 (30.3%) were nurses, 12 (13.4%) were in administration, 16 (17.9%) were in other employment, and 11 (12.3%) did not disclose their employment. In 2020, 75.6% of employees agreed with a score of 10 that implementation of electronic medical records was the right step, compared to only 36.7% in 2016 (p < 0.001). The highest rating for "record entries are faster to write with a computer than handwritten" was obtained in 38% in 2020 vs. 25% in 2016 (p < 0.001).
conclusionSatisfaction with the FIDUS electronic patient record has improved significantly in 2020 compared to 2016, particularly concerning file clarity and faster workflows. The proportion of respondents who see their initial expectations of electronic patient files as 100% fulfilled has tripled. However, there is still a need for optimization of details.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.