• David A Cowan, Mandy B Sands, Susan M Rabizadeh, Charles S Amos, Carolyn Ford, Rachel Nussbaum, David Stein, and Nanette J Liegeois.
• Department of Dermatology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 601 North Caroline Street, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.
• Dermatol Surg. 2007 May 1; 33 (5): 588-95.

BackgroundOperative notes can be generated electronically by manual input of the entire note, free-form oral dictation, or using either an electronic template or a template for dictation. There are few studies that have directly compared these modalities in terms of speed, accuracy, and completeness.ObjectiveThe objective was to determine whether electronic templates are more efficient and reduce errors compared to free-form oral dictation for the completion of Mohs micrographic surgery operative notes.MethodsOperative notes for 110 consecutive Mohs micrographic surgery cases were completed either by oral dictation or by electronic template. The time to dictate or complete the template was recorded for each note. Notes were subsequently edited, recording the number and type of errors as well as the time required to edit each note.ResultsCompared with dictation, operative notes completed with the electronic template had fewer errors (5.8% vs. 81%), took less time to complete (175.5 seconds vs. 240.0 seconds), took less time to review and edit (41.6 seconds vs. 201.1 seconds), and were completed and signed in a more timely fashion (0.115 days vs. 20.7 days).ConclusionElectronic templates are a more accurate and rapid method compared to free-form oral dictation for the completion of Mohs micrographic surgery operative notes and have the advantage of being immediately available to review and sign.

21 keywords...

hide…