Objective To evaluate the ability of an electronic system created at the University of Washington to accurately document prerecorded VF and pulseless electrical activity (PEA) cardiac arrest scenarios compared with the American Heart Association paper cardiac arrest record. Methods 16 anaesthesiology residents were randomly assigned to view one of two prerecorded, simulated VF and PEA scenarios and asked to document the event with either the paper or electronic system. Each subject then repeated the process with the other video and documentation method. Five types of documentation errors were defined: (1) omission, (2) specification, (3) timing, (4) commission and (5) noise. The mean difference in errors between the paper and electronic methods was analysed using a single factor repeated measures ANOVA model. Results Compared with paper records, the electronic system omitted 6.3 fewer events (95% CI −10.1 to −2.5, p=0.003), which represents a 28% reduction in omission errors. Users rec