Authors (including presenting author) :
Dr Herman Lee (1), Dr Eric Yeung (1) ,Ms. Lam Yui Fung (1), Mr. YS Cheng (1), Mr Tommy Wong (2)
Affiliation :
(1) Department of rehabilitation, Kowloon Hospital (2) Information Technology Department, Kowloon Hospital
Keyword 1: :
Inpatient Electronic Result Screening
Keyword 2: :
Effectiveness
Keyword 3: :
Rehabilitation Ward
Introduction :
The traditional paper report system is environmentally unfriendly and may lead to missing report screenings. Instead, the electronic report system is paperless, which can also streamline the screening workflow and achieve report loop closing. Since some departments have concern about the new system, we conduct a review to investigate the outcome of Inpatient Electronic Result Screening in the rehabilitation ward and to share the experience of implementation
Objectives :
To investigate the feasibility of the electronic report screening workflow To assess the outcome of Inpatient Electronic Result Screening
Methodology :
Inpatient Electronic Result Screening was implemented in two rehabilitation wards on June 24, 2025. A new result screening workflow was implemented, requiring doctors to review reports and nurses to handle them via the clinical dashboard and electronic worklist at scheduled times. Clinical data, including reports generated time, doctor screening time, nurse handling time, and compliance of workflow, were analyzed
Result & Outcome :
Results During 25/6/25 to 23/7/25, a total of 891 reports were screened over the four-week period. The mean and median screening times by doctors were 113 minutes and 67 minutes, respectively. 68.8% reports were screened within 120 minutes. The mean duration for nurses to handle doctors’ instructions was 17.2. minutes. The urgent report and non-urgent report handling times were 5.4 and 30.4 minutes, respectively. The compliance of the report screening schedule was 85.7 %. Two reports (0.2%) were not screened for more than 24 hours. Discussion Key elements for the successful implementation of electronic report screening include deep discussion among stakeholders during workflow development, which should include a clear definition of the responsibilities and the schedule of report screening by doctors and report handling by nurses. Testing the workflow in the pilot ward was also helpful to identify potential problems. The system demonstrates numerous beneficial effects, including shortened screening time, closed-loop report screening, environmental friendliness, enhanced screening flexibility, reducing unnecessary phone communication, streamlining workflow through the electronic worklist, and a clinical dashboard. Disadvantages were related to a lack of electronic documentation. Potential risk of assigned reports without screening and signed report without proper handling also need to be monitored. Limitations in the report assignment resulted in a great barrier to the promulgation of the system Conclusion In Patient Electronic Result Screening is effective in shortening the screening time and ensuing loop closing of the reports. The new department workflow can fit the implementation of the electronic screening system. Further improvement in the report selection and assignment function is necessary.
