Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Protocol

Evaluation of interventions to improve electronic health record documentation within the inpatient setting: a protocol for a systematic review

Authors: Lucia Otero Varela, Natalie Wiebe, Daniel J. Niven, Paul E. Ronksley, Nicolas Iragorri, Helen Lee Robertson, Hude Quan

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Electronic health records (EHRs) are increasing in popularity across national and international healthcare systems. Despite their augmented availability and use, the quality of electronic health records is problematic. There are various reasons for poor documentation quality within the EHR, and efforts have been made to address these areas. Previous systematic reviews have assessed intervention effectiveness within the outpatient setting or within paper documentation. This systematic review aims to assess the effectiveness of different interventions seeking to improve EHR documentation within an inpatient setting.

Methods

We will employ a comprehensive search strategy that encompasses four distinct themes: EHR, documentation, interventions, and study design. Four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL) will be searched along with an in-depth examination of the grey literature and reference lists of relevant articles. A customized hybrid study quality assessment tool has been designed, integrating components of the Downs and Black and Newcastle-Ottawa Scales, into a REDCap data capture form to facilitate data extraction and analysis. Given the predicted high heterogeneity between studies, it may not be possible to standardize data for a quantitative comparison and meta-analysis. Thus, data will be synthesized in a narrative, semi-quantitative manner.

Discussion

This review will summarize the current level of evidence on the effectiveness of interventions implemented to improve inpatient EHR documentation, which could ultimately enhance data quality in administrative health databases.

Systematic review registration

Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Maddox T, Matheny M. Natural language processing and the promise of big data. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015;8:463–5.CrossRef Maddox T, Matheny M. Natural language processing and the promise of big data. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015;8:463–5.CrossRef
2.
3.
go back to reference Bowman, S. Impact of Electronic Health Record Systems on Information Integrity: Quality and Safety Implications. Perspectives in Health Information Management. 2013;10(Fall):1c. Bowman, S. Impact of Electronic Health Record Systems on Information Integrity: Quality and Safety Implications. Perspectives in Health Information Management. 2013;10(Fall):1c.
4.
go back to reference Stetson PD, Bakken S, Wrenn JO, Siegler EL. Assessing electronic note quality using the Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9). Appl Clin Inform. 2012;3(02):164–74.CrossRef Stetson PD, Bakken S, Wrenn JO, Siegler EL. Assessing electronic note quality using the Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9). Appl Clin Inform. 2012;3(02):164–74.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Doyle-Lindrud S. The evolution of the electronic health record. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2015;19(2):153–4.CrossRef Doyle-Lindrud S. The evolution of the electronic health record. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2015;19(2):153–4.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Botsis T, Hartvigsen G, Chen F, Weng C. Secondary use of EHR: data quality issues and informatics opportunities. Summit Transl Bioinform. 2010;2010:1.PubMedPubMedCentral Botsis T, Hartvigsen G, Chen F, Weng C. Secondary use of EHR: data quality issues and informatics opportunities. Summit Transl Bioinform. 2010;2010:1.PubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Dhavle AA, Corley ST, Rupp MT, et al. Evaluation of a user guidance reminder to improve the quality of electronic prescription messages. Appl Clin Inform. 2014;5(3):699–707.PubMedPubMedCentral Dhavle AA, Corley ST, Rupp MT, et al. Evaluation of a user guidance reminder to improve the quality of electronic prescription messages. Appl Clin Inform. 2014;5(3):699–707.PubMedPubMedCentral
8.
go back to reference O'leary KJ, Liebovitz DM, Feinglass J, et al. Creating a better discharge summary: improvement in quality and timeliness using an electronic discharge summary. J Hosp Med. 2009;4(4):219–25.CrossRef O'leary KJ, Liebovitz DM, Feinglass J, et al. Creating a better discharge summary: improvement in quality and timeliness using an electronic discharge summary. J Hosp Med. 2009;4(4):219–25.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Lorenzetti D, Quan H, Lucyk K et al. Strategies for improving physician documentation in the emergency department: a systematic review. BMC Emerg Med. 2018;18(1):36. Lorenzetti D, Quan H, Lucyk K et al. Strategies for improving physician documentation in the emergency department: a systematic review. BMC Emerg Med. 2018;18(1):36.
12.
go back to reference Wang N, Hailey D, Yu P. Quality of nursing documentation and approaches to its evaluation: a mixed-method systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2011;67(9):1858–75.CrossRef Wang N, Hailey D, Yu P. Quality of nursing documentation and approaches to its evaluation: a mixed-method systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2011;67(9):1858–75.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Arditi C, Rège-Walther M, Durieux P, Burnand B. Computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals, effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;7:CD001175.PubMed Arditi C, Rège-Walther M, Durieux P, Burnand B. Computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals, effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;7:CD001175.PubMed
14.
go back to reference Hyppönen H, Saranto K, Vuokko R, et al. Impacts of structuring the electronic health record: a systematic review protocol and results of previous reviews. Int J Med Inform. 2014;83(3):159–69.CrossRef Hyppönen H, Saranto K, Vuokko R, et al. Impacts of structuring the electronic health record: a systematic review protocol and results of previous reviews. Int J Med Inform. 2014;83(3):159–69.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Metaanalysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 Statement. Systematic Reviews. 2015;4(1):1. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Metaanalysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 Statement. Systematic Reviews. 2015;4(1):1.
19.
go back to reference Harris P, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) - a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81.CrossRef Harris P, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) - a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Downs S, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52(6):377–84.CrossRef Downs S, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52(6):377–84.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Evaluation of interventions to improve electronic health record documentation within the inpatient setting: a protocol for a systematic review
Authors
Lucia Otero Varela
Natalie Wiebe
Daniel J. Niven
Paul E. Ronksley
Nicolas Iragorri
Helen Lee Robertson
Hude Quan
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-0971-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Systematic Reviews 1/2019 Go to the issue