• Y Beilin, D Wax, T Torrillo, D Mungall, N Guinn, J Henriquez, and D L Reich.
• Department of Anesthesiology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine of New York University, New York, NY 10029-6574, USA. Yaakov.beilin@mountsinai.org
• Int J Obstet Anesth. 2009 Jan 1;18(1):22-7.

BackgroundAn anesthesia information management system (AIMS) is most frequently used in the operating room, but not on labor and delivery (L&D). The purpose of this study is to describe the implementation of an AIMS on L&D and the attitudes of practitioners (anesthesiologists and nurses) toward the system.MethodsThe anesthesiology survey focused on satisfaction with the L&D AIMS, comparison of the L&D AIMS with a handwritten anesthesia record, and comparison of the L&D AIMS with the operating room AIMS. The nursing survey focused on nursing satisfaction with the L&D AIMS and comparison of the L&D AIMS with a handwritten anesthesia record.ResultsMost anesthesiologists (76%) were satisfied with the L&D AIMS and 73% would not want to revert back to the paper record. However, most anesthesiologists felt the operating room AIMS was either superior or equal to the L&D AIMS. Although few nurses (4%) preferred the anesthesiologists revert back to the handwritten record overall, the nurses were neutral in their assessment of the AIMS. Most of the criticism related to the location of the system; 56% believed it was not in a convenient location and 74% thought the AIMS equipment "got in their way".ConclusionsOverall, the anesthesiologists and nurses are satisfied with the L&D AIMS and would not want to switch back to a handwritten record. We conclude that AIMS should not be limited to the operating room setting and can successfully be used in L&D.

15 keywords...

hide…