Leveraging the Existing Anesthesia Information Management System to Improve Anesthesia Quality Assurance Outcome Reporting

Introduction: Tracking measures of quality over time has been shown to improve care within institutions and across health systems. Perioperative quality assurance (QA) tracking by anesthesia departments in the Military Health System (MHS) has not used a uniform system integrated into the workflow of anesthesia providers. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate that the use of the embedded QA outcome reporting feature in the anesthesia information management system (AIMS) increased the rate of reporting compared to the current paper reporting system in a military anesthesia department. Materials and Methods: An electronic outcome reporting mechanism embedded in the AIMS was activated as an alternative to paper QA outcome reporting. The proportion of anesthesia cases per month in a 12-month period with a reported QA outcome was compared to the previous year in which only the paper reporting system was used. The total number of cases in each time period with an outcome reported was compared using chi square for proportions, and systems were evaluated using the Statistical Process Control methodology. This project was evaluated and determined to be exempt from review by our institutional review board. Results: There was a 389.8% increase in the number of cases with a QA outcome reported after the implementation of the outcome reporting function integrated into the AIMS (chi(2)=207.72; P<.001, Table I). Systems before and after the intervention were stable, and special cause variation was noted only at the point of implementation of the electronic reporting system. Anesthesia providers were surveyed and felt that the addition of QA reporting to the AIMS made QA reporting more likely. Conclusions: The use of an electronic QA outcome reporting method integrated into the AIMS dramatically increased the likelihood that a QA outcome would be reported. The decreased administrative burden of the integrated outcome reporting system was likely the primary reason for this increase. This study was limited by the fact that it was done in a single institution; however, the size and timing of the increase clearly indicate that the intervention was the reason for improved reporting. Electronic health record upgrades should consider incorporating QA reporting into the AIMS across the MHS. These measures could allow for system-wide improvement, evaluation, and evidence-based education on their own, but also by facilitating participation in the American Society of Anesthesiologists' Anesthesia Quality Institute's National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry. This report serves as a valuable example to institutions and perioperative leaders in the MHS of how to improve the robustness of perioperative QA reporting such that it could be used to validate and improve the value of care.