Fig 1.
Randomization of study participants.
E, electronic chart; P, paper chart; DM, diabetes mellitus case; UGI upper gastrointestinal bleeding case.
Table 1.
Example of an assessment case with standardized patient hazards.
Table 2.
Demographic data of students who submitted their notes on the standardized patient charts for evaluation.
Fig 2.
Number of recognized patient hazards.
(a) Diabetes mellitus case. (b) Upper gastrointestinal bleeding case. Box plots (Tukey whiskers) for presentation as electronic chart or paper chart. *p < 0.05 for statistical equivalence.
Fig 3.
Type of recognized patient hazard by case and chart.
F1: One diagnostic test for the main problem is missing, F2: One incidental actionable diagnostic finding is present, F3: One medication is contraindicated, F4: One medication has the incorrect dosage, F5 One indicated medication is missing, F6 One medication has adverse effects, F7: One medication is not indicated, F8: One infectious complication is present, F9: The monitoring for the main problem is incomplete, F10: Diet/fluid management is incorrect, F 11 The documentation is incomplete, F12 One risk situation is present for an unauthorized medication.
Fig 4.
Overall recognition of patient hazards when presented in different charts (electronic or paper).
There was no measurable improvement in the second case despite an extensive briefing after the first case. *p < 0.05 for statistical equivalence.
Fig 5.
Numbers of patient hazards recognized by fifth-year medical students.
(a) Transitioning from a paper chart to another case presented in an electronic chart. (b) Transitioning from an electronic chart to another case presented in a paper chart. *p < 0.05 for statistical equivalence.