Nurses are accountable to apply the nursing process, which is key for patient care: It is a problem-solving process providing the structure for care plans and documentation. The state-of-the art nursing process is based on classifications that contain standardized concepts, and therefore, it is named Advanced Nursing Process. It contains valid assessments, nursing diagnoses, interventions, and nursing-sensitive patient outcomes. Electronic decision support systems can assist nurses to apply the Advanced Nursing Process. However, nursing decision support systems are missing, and no "gold standard" is available. The study aim is to develop a valid Nursing Process-Clinical Decision Support System Standard to guide future developments of clinical decision support systems. In a multistep approach, a Nursing Process-Clinical Decision Support System Standard with 28 criteria was developed. After pilot testing (N = 29 nurses), the criteria were reduced to 25. The Nursing Process-Clinical Decision Support System Standard was then presented to eight internationally known experts, who performed qualitative interviews according to Mayring. Fourteen categories demonstrate expert consensus on the Nursing Process-Clinical Decision Support System Standard and its content validity. All experts agreed the Advanced Nursing Process should be the centerpiece for the Nursing Process-Clinical Decision Support System and should suggest research-based, predefined nursing diagnoses and correct linkages between diagnoses, evidence-based interventions, and patient outcomes.
DOCUMENT
Background: Nursing documentation could improve the quality of nursing care by being an important source of information about patients' needs and nursing interventions. Standardized terminologies (e.g. NANDA International and the Omaha System) are expected to enhance the accuracy of nursing documentation. However, it remains unclear whether nursing staff actually feel supported in providing nursing care by the use of electronic health records that include standardized terminologies.Objectives: a. To explore which standardized terminologies are being used by nursing staff in electronic health records. b. To explore to what extent they feel supported by the use of electronic health records. c. To examine whether the extent to which nursing staff feel supported is associated with the standardized terminologies that they use in electronic health records.Design: Cross-sectional survey design.Setting and participants: A representative sample of 667 Dutch registered nurses and certified nursing assistants working with electronic health records. The respondents were working in hospitals, mental health care, home care or nursing homes.Methods: A web-based questionnaire was used. Descriptive statistics were performed to explore which standardized terminologies were used by nursing staff, and to explore the extent to which nursing staff felt supported by the use of electronic health records. Multiple linear regression analyses examined the association between the extent of the perceived support provided by electronic health records and the use of specific standardized terminologies.Results: Only half of the respondents used standardized terminologies in their electronic health records. In general, nursing staff felt most supported by the use of electronic health records in their nursing activities during the provision of care. Nursing staff were often not positive about whether the nursing information in the electronic health records was complete, relevant and accurate, and whether the electronic health records were user-friendly. No association was found between the extent to which nursing staff felt supported by the electronic health records and the use of specific standardized terminologies.Conclusions: More user-friendly designs for electronic health records should be developed. The poor user-friendliness of electronic health records and the variety of ways in which software developers have integrated standardized terminologies might explain why these terminologies had less of an impact on the extent to which nursing staff felt supported by the use of electronic health records.
LINK
To evaluate the effect of the educational program "Guided Clinical Reasoning" (GCR) and the introduction of an intelligent electronic nursing documentation system (e-doc) on the quality of the nursing process.Evaluation was conducted at three measurement points and rated with the instrument "Quality of Nursing Diagnoses, Interventions and Outcomes" (Q-DIO).GCR showed the best Q-DIO-scores. No long-term effect was found after GCR cessation. The e-doc delivered the lowest scores, while showing adequate support in using nursing diagnoses.E-docs can support conducting the nursing process, but for meaningful e-doc use, clinical reasoning is essential.High-quality nursing documentation requires recognition of factors obstructing or supporting nurses in the use of e-docs while conducting the nursing process.
DOCUMENT
OBJECTIVES Previous studies regarding nursing documentation focused primarily on documentation quality, for instance, in terms of the accuracy of the documentation. The combination between accuracy measurements and the quality and frequencies of outcome variables such as the length of the hospital stay were only minimally addressed. METHOD An audit of 300 randomly selected digital nursing records of patients (age of >70 years) admitted between 2013-2014 for hip surgery in two orthopaedic wards of a general Dutch hospital was conducted. RESULTS Nursing diagnoses: Impaired tissue perfusion (wound), Pressure ulcer, and Deficient fluid volume had significant influence on the length of the hospital stay. CONCLUSION Nursing process documentation can be used for outcome calculations. Nevertheless, in the first generation of electronic health records, nursing diagnoses were not documented in a standardized manner (First generation 2010-2015; the first generation of electronic records implemented in clinical practice in the Netherlands).
DOCUMENT
Introduction: Retrospective studies suggest that a rapid initiation of treatment results in a better prognosis for patients in the emergency department. There could be a difference between the actual medication administration time and the documented time in the electronic health record. In this study, the difference between the observed medication administration time and documentation time was investigated. Patient and nurse characteristics were also tested for associations with observed time differences. Methods: In this prospective study, emergency nurses were followed by observers for a total of 3 months. Patient inclusion was divided over 2 time periods. The difference in the observed medication administration time and the corresponding electronic health record documentation time was measured. The association between patient/nurse characteristics and the difference in medication administration and documentation time was tested with a Spearman correlation or biserial correlation test. Results: In 34 observed patients, the median difference in administration and documentation time was 6.0 minutes (interquartile range 2.0-16.0). In 9 (26.5%) patients, the actual time of medication administration differed more than 15 minutes with the electronic health record documentation time. High temperature, lower saturation, oxygen-dependency, and high Modified Early Warning Score were all correlated with an increasing difference between administration and documentation times. Discussion: A difference between administration and documentation times of medication in the emergency department may be common, especially for more acute patients. This could bias, in part, previously reported time-to-treatment measurements from retrospective research designs, which should be kept in mind when outcomes of retrospective time-to-treatment studies are evaluated.
DOCUMENT
A Nursing Process-Clinical Decision Support System (NP-CDSS) Standard with 25 criteria to guide future developments of Nursing Process-Clinical Decision Support Systems was developed. The NP-CDSS Standards' content validity was established in qualitative interviews yielding fourteen categories that demonstrate international expert consensus. All experts judged the Advanced Nursing Process being the centerpiece for Nursing Process-Clinical Decision Support System that should suggest research-based, pre-defined nursing diagnoses and correct linkages between diagnoses, evidence-based interventions and patient outcomes.
LINK
Background and Objective: To develop a health care value framework for physical therapy primary health care organizations including a definition. Method: A scoping review was performed. First, relevant studies were identified in 4 databases (n = 74). Independent reviewers selected eligible studies. Numerical and thematic analyses were performed to draft a preliminary framework including a definition. Next, the feasibility of the framework and definition was explored by physical therapy primary health care organization experts. Results: Numerical and thematic data on health care quality and context-specific performance resulted in a health care value framework for physical therapy primary health care organizations—including a definition of health care value, namely “to continuously attain physical therapy primary health care organization-centered outcomes in coherence with patient- and stakeholder-centered outcomes, leveraged by an organization’s capacity for change.” Conclusion: Prior literature mainly discussed health care quality and context-specific performance for primary health care organizations separately. The current study met the need for a value-based framework, feasible for physical therapy primary health care organizations, which are for a large part micro or small. It also solves the omissions of incoherent literature and existing frameworks on continuous health care quality and context-specific performance. Future research is recommended on longitudinal exploration of the HV (health care value) framework.
DOCUMENT
Background: Digital health is well-positioned in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) to revolutionize health care due, in part, to increasing mobile phone access and internet connectivity. This paper evaluates the underlying factors that can potentially facilitate or hinder the progress of digital health in Pakistan. Objective: The objective of this study is to identify the current digital health projects and studies being carried out in Pakistan, as well as the key stakeholders involved in these initiatives. We aim to follow a mixed-methods strategy and to evaluate these projects and studies through a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis to identify the internal and external factors that can potentially facilitate or hinder the progress of digital health in Pakistan. Methods: This study aims to evaluate digital health projects carried out in the last 5 years in Pakistan with mixed methods. The qualitative and quantitative data obtained from field surveys were categorized according to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) recommended building blocks for health systems research, and the data were analyzed using a SWOT analysis strategy. Results: Of the digital health projects carried out in the last 5 years in Pakistan, 51 are studied. Of these projects, 46% (23/51) used technology for conducting research, 30% (15/51) used technology for implementation, and 12% (6/51) used technology for app development. The health domains targeted were general health (23/51, 46%), immunization (13/51, 26%), and diagnostics (5/51, 10%). Smartphones and devices were used in 55% (28/51) of the interventions, and 59% (30/51) of projects included plans for scaling up. Artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) was used in 31% (16/51) of projects, and 74% (38/51) of interventions were being evaluated. The barriers faced by developers during the implementation phase included the populations’ inability to use the technology or mobile phones in 21% (11/51) of projects, costs in 16% (8/51) of projects, and privacy concerns in 12% (6/51) of projects.
DOCUMENT
Abstract Background: With the growing shortage of nurses, labor-saving technology has become more important. In health care practice, however, the fit with innovations is not easy. The aim of this study is to analyze the development of a mobile input device for electronic medical records (MEMR), a potentially labor-saving application supported by nurses, that failed to meet the needs of nurses after development. Method: In a case study, we used an axiomatic design framework as an evaluation tool to visualize the mismatches between customer needs and the design parameters of the MEMR, and trace these mismatches back to (preliminary) decisions in the development process. We applied a mixed-method research design that consisted of analyzing of 118 external and internal files and working documents, 29 interviews and shorter inquiries, a user test, and an observation of use. By factoring and grouping the findings, we analyzed the relevant categories of mismatches. Results: The involvement of nurses during the development was extensive, but not all feedback was, or could not be, used effectively to improve the MEMR. The mismatches with the most impact were found to be: (1) suboptimal supportive technology, (2) limited functionality of the app and input device, and (3) disruption of nurses’ workflow. Most mismatches were known by the IT department when the MEMR was offered to the units as a product. Development of the MEMR came to a halt because of limited use. Conclusion: Choices for design parameters, made during the development of labor-saving technology for nurses, may conflict with the customer needs of nurses. Even though the causes of mismatches were mentioned by the IT department, the nurse managers acquired the MEMR based on the idea behind the app. The effects of the chosen design parameters should not only be compared to the customer needs, but also be assessed with nurses and nurse managers for the expected effect on the workflow.
LINK
Introduction: Success of e-health relies on the extent to which the related technology, such as the electronic device, is accepted by its users. However, there has been limited research on the patients’ perspective on use of e-health-related technology in rehabilitation care. Objective: To explore the usage of common electronic devices among rehabilitation patients with access to email and investigate their preferences regarding their usage in rehabilitation. Methods: Adult patients who were admitted for inpatient and/or outpatient rehabilitation and were registered with an email address were invited to complete an electronic questionnaire regarding current and preferred use of information and communication technologies in rehabilitation care. Results: 190 out of 714 invited patients completed the questionnaire, 94 (49%) female, mean age 49 years (SD 16). 149 patients (78%) used one or more devices every day, with the most frequently used devices were: PC/laptop (93%), smartphone (57%) and tablet (47%). Patients mostly preferred to use technology for contact with health professionals (mean 3.15, SD 0.79), followed by access to their personal record (mean 3.09, SD 0.78) and scheduling appointments with health professionals (mean 3.07, SD 0.85). Conclusion: Most patients in rehabilitation used one or more devices almost every day and wish to use these devices in rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2017.1358302
MULTIFILE
