Dataset Information

The Analyzation of Change in Documentation due to the Introduction of Electronic Patient Records in Hospitals-A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: The major impact on healthcare through the ongoing digital transformation and new technologies results in opportunities for improving quality of care. Electronic patient records (EPR) are a substantial part in this transformation, even though their influence on documentation remains often unclear. This review aims to answer the question of which effect the introduction of the EPR has on the documentation proper in hospitals. To do this, studies are reviewed that analyze the documentation itself, rather than merely conducting interviews or surveys about it. Several databases were searched in this systematic review (PubMed including PubMed, PubMed Central and Medline; PDQ Evidence; Web of Science Core Collection; CINHAL). To be included, studies needed to analyze written documentation and empirical data, be in either German or English language, published between 2010 and 2020, conducted in a hospital setting, focused on transition from paper-based to electronic patient records, and peer reviewed. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies were included. Studies were independently screened for inclusion by two researchers in three stages (title, abstract, full text) and, in case of disagreement, discussed with a third person from the research team until consensus was reached. The main outcome assessed was whether the studies indicated a negative or positive effect on documentation (e.g. changing the completeness of documentation) by introducing an EPR. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess the individual risk of bias in the included studies. Overall, 264 studies were found. Of these, 17 met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Of all included studies, 11 of 17 proved a positive effect of the introduction of the EPR on documentation such as an improved completeness or guideline adherence of the documentation. Six of 17 showed a mixed effect with positive and negative or no changes. No study showed an exclusively negative effect. Most studies found a positive effect of EPR introduction on documentation. However, it is difficult to draw specific conclusions about how the EPR affects or does not affect documentation since the included studies examined a variety of outcomes. As a result, various scenarios are conceivable with higher or reduced burden for practitioners. Additionally, the impact on treatment remains unclear.

SUBMITTER: Wurster F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9252957 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInternationally, patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) are increasingly being implemented. Despite reported benefits to patients, the innovation has prompted concerns among health care professionals (HCPs), including the possibility that access incurs a "dumbing down" of clinical records. Currently, no review has investigated empirical evidence of whether and how documentation changes after introducing PAEHRs.ObjectiveThis paper presents the protocol for a scoping review examining potential subjective and objective changes in HCPs documentation after using PAEHRs.MethodsThis scoping review will be carried out based on the framework of Arksey and O'Malley. Several databases will be used to conduct a literature search (APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, PubMed, and Web of Science Core Collection). Authors will participate in screening identified papers to explore the research questions: How do PAEHRs affect HCPs' documentation practices? and What subjective and objective changes to the clinical notes arise after patient access? Only studies that relate to actual use experiences, and not merely prior expectations about PAEHRs, will be selected in the review. Data abstraction will include but will not be limited to publication type, publication year, country, sample characteristics, setting, study aim, research question, and conclusions. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool will be used to assess the quality of the studies included.ResultsThe results from this scoping review will be presented as a narrative synthesis structured along the key themes of the corpus of evidence. Additional data will be prepared in charts or tabular format. We anticipate the results to be presented in a scoping review at a later date. They will be disseminated at scientific conferences and through publication in a peer-reviewed journal.ConclusionsThis is the first scoping review that considers potential change in documentation after implementation of PAEHRs. The results can potentially help affirm or refute prior opinions and expectations among various stakeholders about the use of PAEHRs and thereby help to address uncertainties. Results may help to provide guidance to clinicians in writing notes and thus have immediate practical relevance to care. In addition, the review will help to identify any substantive research gaps in this field of research. In the longer term, our findings may contribute to the development of shared documentation guidelines, which in turn are central to improving patient communication and safety.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/46722.

Project description:BackgroundEngaging patients in the delivery of health care has the potential to improve health outcomes and patient satisfaction. Patient portals may enhance patient engagement by enabling patients to access their electronic medical records (EMRs) and facilitating secure patient-provider communication.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to review literature describing patient portals tethered to an EMR in inpatient settings, their role in patient engagement, and their impact on health care delivery in order to identify factors and best practices for successful implementation of this technology and areas that require further research.MethodsA systematic search for articles in the PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase databases was conducted using keywords associated with patient engagement, electronic health records, and patient portals and their respective subject headings in each database. Articles for inclusion were evaluated for quality using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) for systematic review articles and the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs for empirical studies. Included studies were categorized by their focus on input factors (eg, portal design), process factors (eg, portal use), and output factors (eg, benefits) and by the valence of their findings regarding patient portals (ie, positive, negative, or mixed).ResultsThe systematic search identified 58 articles for inclusion. The inputs category was addressed by 40 articles, while the processes and outputs categories were addressed by 36 and 46 articles, respectively: 47 articles addressed multiple themes across the three categories, and 11 addressed only a single theme. Nineteen articles had high- to very high-quality, 21 had medium quality, and 18 had low- to very low-quality. Findings in the inputs category showed wide-ranging portal designs; patients' privacy concerns and lack of encouragement from providers were among portal adoption barriers while information access and patient-provider communication were among facilitators. Several methods were used to train portal users with varying success. In the processes category, sociodemographic characteristics and medical conditions of patients were predictors of portal use; some patients wanted unlimited access to their EMRs, personalized health education, and nonclinical information; and patients were keen to use portals for communicating with their health care teams. In the outputs category, some but not all studies found patient portals improved patient engagement; patients perceived some portal functions as inadequate but others as useful; patients and staff thought portals may improve patient care but could cause anxiety in some patients; and portals improved patient safety, adherence to medications, and patient-provider communication but had no impact on objective health outcomes.ConclusionsWhile the evidence is currently immature, patient portals have demonstrated benefit by enabling the discovery of medical errors, improving adherence to medications, and providing patient-provider communication, etc. High-quality studies are needed to fully understand, improve, and evaluate their impact.

Project description:BackgroundInpatient nursing documentation facilitates multi-disciplinary team care and tracking of patient progress. In both high- and low- and middle-income settings, it is largely paper-based and may be used as a template for electronic medical records. However, there is limited evidence on how they have been developed.ObjectiveTo synthesise evidence on how paper-based nursing records have been developed and implemented in inpatient settings to support documentation of nursing care.DesignA scoping review guided by the Arksey and O'Malley framework and reported using PRISMA-ScR guidelines.Eligibility criteriaWe included studies that described the process of designing paper-based inpatient records and excluded those focussing on electronic records. Included studies were published in English up to October 2019.Sources of evidencePubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane supplemented by free-text searches on Google Scholar and snowballing the reference sections of included papers.Results12 studies met the eligibility criteria. We extracted data on study characteristics, the development process and outcomes related to documentation of inpatient care. Studies reviewed followed a process of problem identification, literature review, chart (re)design, piloting, implementation and evaluation but varied in their execution of each step. All studies except one reported a positive change in inpatient documentation or the adoption of charts amid various challenges.ConclusionsThe approaches used seemed to work for each of the studies but could be strengthened by following a systematic process. Human-centred Design provides a clear process that prioritises the healthcare professional's needs and their context to deliver a usable product. Problems with the chart could be addressed during the design phase rather than during implementation, thereby promoting chart ownership and uptake since users are involved throughout the design. This will translate to better documentation of inpatient care thus facilitating better patient tracking, improved team communication and better patient outcomes.Relevance to clinical practicePaper-based charts should be designed in a systematic and clear process that considers patient's and healthcare professional's needs contributing to improved uptake of charts and therefore better documentation.

Dataset Information

The Analyzation of Change in Documentation due to the Introduction of Electronic Patient Records in Hospitals-A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets