Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Medical Systems 8/2022

Open Access 01-08-2022 | Implementation Science & Operations Management

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

Authors: Florian Wurster, Garret Fütterer, Marina Beckmann, Kerstin Dittmer, Julia Jaschke, Juliane Köberlein-Neu, Mi-Ran Okumu, Carsten Rusniok, Holger Pfaff, Ute Karbach

Published in: Journal of Medical Systems | Issue 8/2022

Login to get access

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
3.
go back to reference Gesner E, Gazarian P, Dykes P (2019) The burden and burnout in documenting patient care: An integrative literature review MEDINFO 2019: Health and wellbeing e-networks for all. IOS Press, S 1194–1198 Gesner E, Gazarian P, Dykes P (2019) The burden and burnout in documenting patient care: An integrative literature review MEDINFO 2019: Health and wellbeing e-networks for all. IOS Press, S 1194–1198
4.
go back to reference Dick RS, Steen EB, Detme DE (1997) Computer-based patient record: An essential technology for health care. An essential technology for health care, revised edition. National Academies Press Dick RS, Steen EB, Detme DE (1997) Computer-based patient record: An essential technology for health care. An essential technology for health care, revised edition. National Academies Press
7.
go back to reference Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71CrossRef Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 372:n71. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1136/​bmj.​n71CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Nonnemacher M, Nasseh D, Stausberg J (2014) Datenqualität in der medizinischen Forschung. Leitlinie zum adaptiven Management von Datenqualität in Kohortenstudien und Registern, 2. Aufl. Schriftenreihe der TMF - Technologie- und Methodenplattform für die Vernetzte Medizinische Forschung e.V, Band 4. Medizinisch Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft, Berlin Nonnemacher M, Nasseh D, Stausberg J (2014) Datenqualität in der medizinischen Forschung. Leitlinie zum adaptiven Management von Datenqualität in Kohortenstudien und Registern, 2. Aufl. Schriftenreihe der TMF - Technologie- und Methodenplattform für die Vernetzte Medizinische Forschung e.V, Band 4. Medizinisch Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft, Berlin
9.
go back to reference Hong QN, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, Dagenais P, Gagnon M-P, Griffiths F, Nicolau B (2018) Mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT), version 2018. Registration of copyright 1148552:10 Hong QN, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, Dagenais P, Gagnon M-P, Griffiths F, Nicolau B (2018) Mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT), version 2018. Registration of copyright 1148552:10
16.
go back to reference Boo Y, Noh YA, Kim M-G, Kim S (2012) A study of the difference in volume of information in chief complaint and present illness between electronic and paper medical records. Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia 41(1):11–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/183335831204100102CrossRef Boo Y, Noh YA, Kim M-G, Kim S (2012) A study of the difference in volume of information in chief complaint and present illness between electronic and paper medical records. Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia 41(1):11–16. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​1833358312041001​02CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Yadav S, Kazanji N, K C N, Paudel S, Falatko J, Shoichet S, Maddens M, Barnes MA (2017) Comparison of accuracy of physical examination findings in initial progress notes between paper charts and a newly implemented electronic health record. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA 24(1):140–144. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocw067CrossRefPubMed Yadav S, Kazanji N, K C N, Paudel S, Falatko J, Shoichet S, Maddens M, Barnes MA (2017) Comparison of accuracy of physical examination findings in initial progress notes between paper charts and a newly implemented electronic health record. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA 24(1):140–144. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​jamia/​ocw067CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Burke HB, Hoang A, Becher D, Fontelo P, Liu F, Stephens M, Pangaro LN, Sessums LL, O'Malley P, Baxi NS (2014) QNOTE: an instrument for measuring the quality of EHR clinical notes. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA 21(5):910–916CrossRef Burke HB, Hoang A, Becher D, Fontelo P, Liu F, Stephens M, Pangaro LN, Sessums LL, O'Malley P, Baxi NS (2014) QNOTE: an instrument for measuring the quality of EHR clinical notes. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA 21(5):910–916CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Müller-Staub M, Lunney M, Lavin MA, Needham I, Odenbreit M, van Achterberg T (2008) Testing the Q-DIO as an instrument to measure the documented quality of nursing diagnoses, interventions, and outcomes. International journal of nursing terminologies and classifications : the official journal of NANDA International 19(1):20–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-618X.2007.00075.xCrossRef Müller-Staub M, Lunney M, Lavin MA, Needham I, Odenbreit M, van Achterberg T (2008) Testing the Q-DIO as an instrument to measure the documented quality of nursing diagnoses, interventions, and outcomes. International journal of nursing terminologies and classifications : the official journal of NANDA International 19(1):20–27. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​j.​1744-618X.​2007.​00075.​xCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Donabedian A (1988) The quality of care: how can it be assessed? JAMA 260(12):1743–1748CrossRef Donabedian A (1988) The quality of care: how can it be assessed? JAMA 260(12):1743–1748CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Ommaya AK, Cipriano PF, Hoyt DB, Horvath KA, Tang P, Paz HL, DeFrancesco MS, Hingle ST, Butler S, Sinsky CA (2018) Care-centered clinical documentation in the digital environment: solutions to alleviate burnout. NAM Perspectives 8(1). https://doi.org/10.31478/201801c Ommaya AK, Cipriano PF, Hoyt DB, Horvath KA, Tang P, Paz HL, DeFrancesco MS, Hingle ST, Butler S, Sinsky CA (2018) Care-centered clinical documentation in the digital environment: solutions to alleviate burnout. NAM Perspectives 8(1). https://​doi.​org/​10.​31478/​201801c
Metadata
Title
The Analyzation of Change in Documentation due to the Introduction of Electronic Patient Records in Hospitals—A Systematic Review
Authors
Florian Wurster
Garret Fütterer
Marina Beckmann
Kerstin Dittmer
Julia Jaschke
Juliane Köberlein-Neu
Mi-Ran Okumu
Carsten Rusniok
Holger Pfaff
Ute Karbach
Publication date
01-08-2022
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Medical Systems / Issue 8/2022
Print ISSN: 0148-5598
Electronic ISSN: 1573-689X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-022-01840-0

Other articles of this Issue 8/2022

Journal of Medical Systems 8/2022 Go to the issue