title: Comparison of manual versus automated data collection method for an evidence-based nursing practice study.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The objective of this study was to investigate and improve the use of automated data collection procedures for nursing research and quality assurance.
  
  
  METHODS
  A descriptive, correlational study analyzed 44 orthopedic surgical patients who were part of an evidence-based practice (EBP) project examining post-operative oxygen therapy at a Midwestern hospital. The automation work attempted to replicate a manually-collected data set from the EBP project.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Automation was successful in replicating data collection for study data elements that were available in the clinical data repository. The automation procedures identified 32 "false negative" patients who met the inclusion criteria described in the EBP project but were not selected during the manual data collection. Automating data collection for certain data elements, such as oxygen saturation, proved challenging because of workflow and practice variations and the reliance on disparate sources for data abstraction. Automation also revealed instances of human error including computational and transcription errors as well as incomplete selection of eligible patients.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Automated data collection for analysis of nursing-specific phenomenon is potentially superior to manual data collection methods. Creation of automated reports and analysis may require initial up-front investment with collaboration between clinicians, researchers and information technology specialists who can manage the ambiguities and challenges of research and quality assurance work in healthcare.
authors: Saint Catherine University , Nursing, Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States.
authors: M D
authors: MD
authors: Byrne
authors: T R
authors: TR
authors: Jordan
authors: T
authors: T
authors: Welle
mesh_terms: D000465:Algorithms; D019644:Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; D019645:Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; D001331:Automation; D003625:Data Collection / Q000379:methods*; D055318:Evidence-Based Nursing / Q000379:methods*; D005260:Female; D006761:Hospitals; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care; D015203:Reproducibility of Results
keywords: Automation; comparative study; data collection; evidence-based nursing; nursing methodology research
references: Stud Health Technol Inform. 2010;155:14-29
references: 20543306
references: ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 2009 Jul-Sep;32(3):241-51
references: 19707092
references: Arch Toxicol Suppl. 1983;6:361-4
references: 6578744
references: Health Aff (Millwood). 2007 Mar-Apr;26(2):w181-91
references: 17259202
references: Int J Med Inform. 2011 Jan;80(1):47-55
references: 21130682
references: Artif Intell Med. 2002 Sep-Oct;26(1-2):1-24
references: 12234714
references: Int J Med Inform. 2001 Nov;64(1):39-56
references: 11673101
references: Int J Med Inform. 2007 Jun;76 Suppl 1:S21-7
references: 16793330
references: Nurs Outlook. 2005 Jul-Aug;53(4):183-91; discussion 192
references: 16115510
references: Int J Nurs Stud. 2011 Aug;48(8):1024-38
references: 21669433
references: Stud Health Technol Inform. 2009;143:115-21
references: 19380924
references: Nurs Outlook. 2008 Sep-Oct;56(5):232-6
references: 18922275
references: Nurs Outlook. 2008 Sep-Oct;56(5):206-214.e3
references: 18922269
references: J Healthc Inf Manag. 2001 Summer;15(2):119-31
references: 11452574
references: Comput Inform Nurs. 2002 May-Jun;20(3):89-100
references: 12021607
references: AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2007 Oct 11;:26-30
references: 18693791
references: J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004 Mar-Apr;11(2):104-12
references: 14633936
references: Am J Med Qual. 2009 Jan-Feb;24(1):29-34
references: 19139461
references: J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010 Mar-Apr;17(2):136-43
references: 20190055
references: Clin Nurse Spec. 2010 Nov-Dec;24(6):289-94
references: 20940566
references: Psychol Sci. 2011 Jan;22(1):71-9
references: 21148460
references: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;32(4):351-9
references: 21460486