IntroductionUse of electronic health record (EHR) systems can place a considerable data entry burden upon the emergency department (ED) physician. Voice recognition data entry has been proposed as one mechanism to mitigate some of this burden; however, no reports are available specifically comparing emergency physician (EP) time use or number of interruptions between typed and voice recognition data entry-based EHRs. We designed this study to compare physician time use and interruptions between an EHR system using typed data entry versus an EHR with voice recognition.MethodsWe collected prospective observational data at 2 academic teaching hospital EDs, one using an EHR with typed data entry and the other with voice recognition capabilities. Independent raters observed EP activities during regular shifts. Tasks each physician performed were noted and logged in 30 second intervals. We compared time allocated to charting, direct patient care, and change in tasks leading to interruptions between sites.ResultsWe logged 4,140 minutes of observation for this study. We detected no statistically significant differences in the time spent by EPs charting (29.4% typed; 27.5% voice) or the time allocated to direct patient care (30.7%; 30.8%). Significantly more interruptions per hour were seen with typed data entry versus voice recognition data entry (5.33 vs. 3.47; p=0.0165).ConclusionThe use of a voice recognition data entry system versus typed data entry did not appear to alter the amount of time physicians spend charting or performing direct patient care in an ED setting. However, we did observe a lower number of workflow interruptions with the voice recognition data entry EHR. Additional research is needed to further evaluate the data entry burden in the ED and examine alternative mechanisms for chart entry as EHR systems continue to evolve.

Introduction: Various types of sedation can be used for the reduction of a dislocated total hip arthroplasty. Traditionally, an opiate/benzodiazepine combination has been employed. The use of other pharmacologic agents, such as etomidate and propofol, have more recently gained popularity. Currently no studies directly comparing these sedation agents have been carried out. The purpose of this study is to compare differences in reduction and sedation outcomes, including recovery times, of these 3 sedation agents.Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review examining 198 patients who presented with dislocated total hip arthroplasty at 2 academic affiliated medical centers. The patients were grouped according to the type of sedation agent. We calculated percentages of reduction and sedation complications along with recovery times. Reduction complications included fracture, skin or neurovascular injury, and failure of reduction requiring general anesthesia. Sedation complications included use of bag-valve mask and artificial airway, intubation, prolonged recovery, use of a reversal agent, and inability to achieve sedation. We then compared the data for each sedation agent.Results: We found reduction complications rates of 8.7% in the propofol, 24.7% in the etomidate, and 28.9% in the opiate/benzodiazepine groups. The propofol group was significantly different from the other 2agents (p ≤ 0.01). Sedation complications were found 7.3% of the time in the propofol , 11.7% in the etomidate , and 21.3% in the opiate/benzodiazepine group, (p=0.02 propofol vs. others) . Average recovery times were 25.2 minutes for propofol, 30.8 minutes for etomidate, and 44.4 minutes for opiate/benzodiazepine (p = 0.05 for propofol vs. other agents).Conclusion: For reduction of dislocated total hip arthroplasty under procedural sedation, propofol appears to have fewer complications and a trend toward more rapid recovery than both etomidate and opiate/benzodiazepine. These data support the use of propofol as first line agent for procedural sedation of dislocated total hip arthroplasty, with fewer complications and a shorter recovery period.