ArticleJournal of medical systems2016
The Impact of Electronic Health Records on Risk Management of Information Systems in Australian Residential Aged Care Homes.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- 'It enables the carers to see the person first': Qualitative evaluation of point-of-care digital management system in residential aged care.Journal of clinical nursing · 2023Article
- Article
- Impact of Electronic Health Records on Long-Term Care Facilities: Systematic Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To obtain indications of the influence of electronic health records (EHR) in managing risks and meeting information system accreditation standard in Australian residential aged care (RAC) homes. The hypothesis to be tested is that the RAC homes using EHR have better performance in meeting information system standards in aged care accreditation than their counterparts only using paper records for information management. Content analysis of aged care accreditation reports from the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency produced between April 2011 and December 2013. Items identified included types of information systems, compliance with accreditation standards, and indicators of failure to meet an expected outcome for information systems. The Chi-square test was used to identify difference between the RAC homes that used EHR systems and those that used paper records in not meeting aged care accreditation standards. 1,031 (37.4%) of 2,754 RAC homes had adopted EHR systems. Although the proportion of homes that met all accreditation standards was significantly higher for those with EHR than for homes with paper records, only 13 RAC homes did not meet one or more expected outcomes. 12 used paper records and nine of these failed the expected outcome for information systems. The overall contribution of EHR to meeting aged care accreditation standard in Australia was very small. Risk indicators for not meeting information system standard were no access to accurate and appropriate information, failure in monitoring mechanisms, not reporting clinical incidents, insufficient recording of residents' clinical changes, not providing accurate care plans, and communication processes failure. The study has provided indications that use of EHR provides small, yet significant advantages for RAC homes in Australia in managing risks for information management and in meeting accreditation requirements. The implication of the study for introducing technology innovation in RAC in Australia is discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27501930What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.