Key result
AIMS adoption reaches ~44% in surveyed European hospitals, limited by financial constraints and unrecognized benefits.
Why the study?
Existing Anesthesia Information Management Systems are much less researched outside of the USA, despite their well-described theoretical benefits.
Cross-Sectional (n=52)
Yes
Absolute Event Rate: 44% vs 50%
Adoption of Anesthesia Information Management Systems in Europe appears slower than in the US, characterized by high system heterogeneity and significant financial barriers.
Persistent financial barriers may slow AIMS adoption in Europe; leaves open the need for outcome studies to demonstrate value.
The theoretical aspects and benefits of Anesthesia Information Management Systems (AIMS) are well described in literature already. However, certain existing systems are much less researched with most studies concentrating on the USA. In our study, we sent a link to a Google questionnaire to 403 European hospitals and to 382 European authors who have published in the last five years in a renowned anesthesiologic journal. We have not researched AIMS usage in the Czech Republic, as we have covered this topic in our previous study. We asked responders for information on their AIMS (name, vendor, length of use) or to explain why they do not use one. We received 14 responses from the hospitals and 38 responses directly from the authors. With the return rate of 8 per cent we evaluated our study in qualitative terms. Among the 23 respondents that use AIMS there are 12 different systems including two self-developed systems. A number of these systems have not previously been mentioned in the literature. Most use their systems longer than five years but only three respondents are implementing AIMS at the moment. Both these findings show slower progress in this field than in the USA. Typical reasons given from non-users were financial constraints and inability to recognize benefits of AIMS. Incompatibilities with other medical software and medical devices in use were also mentioned. The heterogeneity of AIMS used and perceived barriers corroborate our previous study from the Czech Republic.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bruthans et al. (2020) conducted a cross-sectional in Anesthesia Information Management Systems (AIMS) usage (n=52). Anesthesia Information Management Systems (AIMS) vs. Non-users was evaluated on Proportion of institutions using AIMS. Among 52 respondents from European hospitals, 44% reported using an Anesthesia Information Management System, with financial constraints and lack of recognized benefits cited as primary barriers to adoption.