O impacto de diferentes formas de registros clínicos de pacientes sobre o desempenho físico e mental dos profissionais de saúde: uma revisão sistemática
Data
2022-10-27
Autores
Franco, Eduardo Signorini Bicas 
Orientadores
Silva, Maria Stella Peccin da
Tipo
Tese de doutorado
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Resumo
Introdução: Os prontuários eletrônicos são considerados formas tecnológicas para
introduzir diversos dados do paciente feito por um profissional, capazes de gerar
informações relevantes, tornando mais confiável o seu acompanhamento. Essas
plataformas vêm sendo cada vez mais “lapidadas” para garantir a segurança dos
elementos coletados. Objetivo: O objetivo dessa revisão foi avaliar os efeitos do uso de
prontuários eletrônicos em profissionais de saúde para o desenvolvimento de processos
de adoecimento vinculados ao trabalho e redução de índices de performance físico e
mental. Métodos: O estudo é uma revisão sistemática que utilizou as seguintes bases de
dados: Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Biblioteca Virtual de Saúde, Literatura
Cinzenta. Associado a essas bases, foram feitas buscas manuais através da lista de
referências dos estudos selecionados para a síntese final. Os desfechos encontrados
foram: percepção de carga de trabalho atribuída aos profissionais de saúde ao comparar
tipos diferentes de prontuários, números de erros cometidos envolvendo a interface
tecnológica das ferramentas, tempo necessário para cumprir uma determinada tarefa e o
nível de performance dos usuários através dos prérequisitos
encontrados entre os grupos.
Resultados: 11.914 artigos foram encontrados nas buscas através das plataformas
eletrônicas. Ao finalizar todas as etapas, 5 estudos preencheram todos os critérios de
elegibilidade. Com a análise dos estudos primários, foi encontrado a comparação entre
prontuários eletrônicos versus modelos não eletrônico. A ferramenta eletrônica pode
demonstrar melhor aceitação pelos profissionais de saúde, influenciando positivamente
na menor percepção de carga de trabalho (Grupo eletrônico – Mediana 39 [intervalo
interquartil 3150]
; Grupo papel – Mediana 50 [intervalo interquartil 3656])
e no menor
tempo necessário a ser utilizado para uma mesma tarefa (Grupo eletrônico – Mediana
1.023 segundos [intervalo interquartil 769s1521s]
; Grupo papel – Mediana 1.172s
[intervalo interquartil 826s1542s).
Já, a comparação entre prontuário eletrônico versus
prontuários eletrônicos, foram observadas discrepâncias em relação aos desfechos
encontrados a partir da interface e layout das ferramentas. Conclusão: Foi identificado
que prontuários eletrônicos possibilitaram melhores experiências aos profissionais de
saúde comparado a modelos não eletrônicos. Também foi encontrado que modelos
eletrônicos mais intuitivos tornavam o tempo de usabilidade menor.
Background: Electronic medical records are considered technological ways to introduce different patient data made by a professional, capable of generating relevant information, making monitoring more reliable. Objective: The aim of this review was to evaluate the effects of the use of electronic medical records in health professionals for the development of workrelated illness processes and reduction of physical and mental performance indexes. Methods: The study is a systematic review using the following databases: Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Virtual Health Library, Gray Literature. Associated with these bases, manual searches were performed through the reference list of the studies selected for the final synthesis. The outcomes found were: perception of workload attributed to health professionals when comparing different types of medical records, number of errors made involving the technological interface of the tools, time required to fulfill a certain task and the level of performance of users through the pre requirements found between groups. Results: 11,914 articles were found in searches through electronic platforms. Upon completion of all steps, 5 studies met all eligibility criteria. With the analysis of primary studies, a comparison was found between electronic medical records versus nonelectronic models. The electronic tool can demonstrate better acceptance by health professionals, positively influencing the lower perception of workload (Electronic group – Median 39 [interquartile range 3150] ; Paper group – Median 50 [interquartile range 3656]) and the shorter time needed to be used for the same task (Electronic group – Median 1023 seconds [interquartile range 769s1521s] ; Paper Group – Median 1172s [interquartile range 826s1542s). In the comparison between electronic medical records versus electronic medical records, discrepancies were observed in relation to the outcomes found from the interface and layout of the tools. Conclusion: It was identified that electronic medical records enabled better experiences for health professionals compared to nonelectronic models. It was also found that more intuitive electronic models made usability time shorter.
Background: Electronic medical records are considered technological ways to introduce different patient data made by a professional, capable of generating relevant information, making monitoring more reliable. Objective: The aim of this review was to evaluate the effects of the use of electronic medical records in health professionals for the development of workrelated illness processes and reduction of physical and mental performance indexes. Methods: The study is a systematic review using the following databases: Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Virtual Health Library, Gray Literature. Associated with these bases, manual searches were performed through the reference list of the studies selected for the final synthesis. The outcomes found were: perception of workload attributed to health professionals when comparing different types of medical records, number of errors made involving the technological interface of the tools, time required to fulfill a certain task and the level of performance of users through the pre requirements found between groups. Results: 11,914 articles were found in searches through electronic platforms. Upon completion of all steps, 5 studies met all eligibility criteria. With the analysis of primary studies, a comparison was found between electronic medical records versus nonelectronic models. The electronic tool can demonstrate better acceptance by health professionals, positively influencing the lower perception of workload (Electronic group – Median 39 [interquartile range 3150] ; Paper group – Median 50 [interquartile range 3656]) and the shorter time needed to be used for the same task (Electronic group – Median 1023 seconds [interquartile range 769s1521s] ; Paper Group – Median 1172s [interquartile range 826s1542s). In the comparison between electronic medical records versus electronic medical records, discrepancies were observed in relation to the outcomes found from the interface and layout of the tools. Conclusion: It was identified that electronic medical records enabled better experiences for health professionals compared to nonelectronic models. It was also found that more intuitive electronic models made usability time shorter.