Consensus statement identifies key elements for EMR implementation in CPB, suggesting improved quality and efficiency in care.
Background The adoption of Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) for Cardiopulmonary Bypass (CPB) procedures has been slow within the perfusion community, despite the widespread use of EMRs in hospitals. This consensus statement aims to provide recommendations for the implementation and use of EMRs in CPB-related care. The goals include promoting EMR adoption, ensuring standardization across platforms, facilitating quality improvement initiatives, and encouraging participation in data registries. Methods Using a modified Delphi methodology, the consensus group identified 16 key elements for EMR use during CPB, categorized into selection/ acquisition/ installation, perioperative, and post-procedure stages. Results There were 82 statements identified across the 16 EMR elements, with 80.4% (n=66) achieving an average consensus score of 7.0 and higher. Consensus was not achieved in 19.5% (n=16) of the element statements. Key recommendations include integration with digital outputs of bypass pumps, connectivity with patient monitors, adherence to security standards, and the ability to customize and adapt EMR systems to specific institutional needs. Conclusion The survey results underscore the significance of user-friendly perfusion data acquisition systems in minimizing cognitive load, highlighting their ease of use and ability to enhance workload efficiency. Essential elements include connectivity and interfacing, especially with equipment and physiological data integration, along with the necessity for dependable data storage and backup solutions. Further research is needed to investigate the potential advantages of integrating clinical decision support and pharmaceutical information integration. By addressing these elements, the consensus statement aims to improve the quality of perfusion practice and patient outcomes in CPB procedures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dickey et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: