Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24734130›Full record

ArticleApplied clinical informatics2014

A qualitative analysis evaluating the purposes and practices of clinical documentation.

Y-X Ho, C S Gadd, K L Kohorst, S T Rosenbloom

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Dental Recordkeeping: Practice in Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Y-X HoDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine , Nashville, TN.
C S GaddDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine , Nashville, TN.
K L KohorstDepartment of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center , Nashville, TN.
S T Rosenbloom

Funding

A Framework Based Clinical Documentation Evaluation MethodR01LM009591 · NLM · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI ROSENBLOOM, S TRENT · 2008 to 2010
$914k
Testing Evaluation Metrics for Interface TerminologiesK22LM008576 · NLM · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI ROSENBLOOM, SAMUEL T · 2005 to 2007
$453k
NLM NIH HHS 5K22LM8576-03NLM NIH HHS K22 LM008576NLM NIH HHS R01 LM009591NLM NIH HHS R01LM009591-01A1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesAn important challenge for biomedical informatics researchers is determining the best approach for healthcare providers to use when generating clinical notes in settings where electronic health record (EHR) systems are used. The goal of this qualitative study was to explore healthcare providers' and administrators' perceptions about the purpose of clinical documentation and their own documentation practices.

methodsWe conducted seven focus groups with a total of 46 subjects composed of healthcare providers and administrators to collect knowledge, perceptions and beliefs about documentation from those who generate and review notes, respectively. Data were analyzed using inductive analysis to probe and classify impressions collected from focus group subjects.

resultsWe observed that both healthcare providers and administrators believe that documentation serves five primary domains: clinical, administrative, legal, research, education. These purposes are tied closely to the nature of the clinical note as a document shared by multiple stakeholders, which can be a source of tension for all parties who must use the note. Most providers reported using a combination of methods to complete their notes in a timely fashion without compromising patient care. While all administrators reported relying on computer-based documentation tools to review notes, they expressed a desire for a more efficient method of extracting relevant data.

conclusionsAlthough clinical documentation has utility, and is valued highly by its users, the development and successful adoption of a clinical documentation tool largely depends on its ability to be smoothly integrated into the provider's busy workflow, while allowing the provider to generate a note that communicates effectively and efficiently with multiple stakeholders.

Indexed as

DocumentationQualitative ResearchDemographyHealth PersonnelHumansTennesseeClinical documentation and communicationselectronic health records and systemspersonal health recordsP.H.S.qualitative methodssupportU.S. Gov’tworkflows and human interactions

Identifiers

PMID24734130
PMCPMC3974254

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.