ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2024
Usability and usefulness of (electronic) patient identification systems-A cross-sectional evaluation in German-speaking radiation oncology departments.
Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Implant geometry as a patient-specific identifier in breast brachytherapy: leveraging electromagnetic tracking to prevent treatment mix-ups.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePatient misidentification in radiation oncology (RO) is a significant concern due to the potential harm to patient health and the burden on healthcare systems. Electronic patient identification systems (ePIS) are increasingly being used as an alternative or supplement to organizational systems (oPIS). The objective of this study was to assess the usability and usefulness of ePIS and oPIS in German-speaking countries.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was designed by a group of experts from various professional backgrounds in RO. The survey consisted of 38 questions encompassing quantitative and qualitative data on usability, user experience, and usefulness of PIS. It was available between August and October 2022.
resultsOf 118 eligible participants, 37% had implemented some kind of ePIS. Overall, 22% of participants who use an oPIS vs. 10% of participants who use an ePIS reported adverse events in terms of patients' misidentification in the past 5 years. Frequent or very frequent drop-outs of electronic systems were reported by 31% of ePIS users. Users of ePIS significantly more often affirmed a positive cost-benefit ratio of ePIS as well as an improvement of workflow, whereas users of oPIS more frequently apprehended a decrease in staffs' attention through ePIS. The response rate was 8%.
conclusionThe implementation of ePIS can contribute to efficient PI and improved processes. Apprehensions by oPIS users and assessments of ePIS users differ significantly in aspects of the perceived usefulness of ePIS. However, technical problems need to be addressed to ensure the reliability of ePIS. Further research is needed to assess the impact of different PIS on patient safety in RO.
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.