Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28269961›Full record

ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2016

Nurse Informaticians Report Low Satisfaction and Multi-level Concerns with Electronic Health Records: Results from an International Survey.

Maxim Topaz, Charlene Ronquillo, Laura-Maria Peltonen, Lisiane Pruinelli, Raymond Francis Sarmiento, Martha K Badger, Samira Ali, Adrienne Lewis, Mattias Georgsson, Eunjoo Jeon and 8 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  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

18 authors.

Maxim TopazHarvard Medical School & Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, USA.
Charlene RonquilloUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada & University of the West of England.
Laura-Maria PeltonenNursing Science, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Lisiane PruinelliUniversity of Minnesota, School of Nursing, MN, USA.
Raymond Francis SarmientoNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, USA.
Martha K BadgerUniversity of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Samira AliCarlow University, Pittsburgh, USA.
Adrienne LewisIndependent Researcher, Canada.
Mattias GeorgssonFaculty of Computing, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden.
Eunjoo JeonCollege of Nursing, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jude L TayabenCollege of Nursing, Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet, Philippines.
Chiu-Hsiang KuoTzu Chi University of Science and Technology, Taiwan.
Tasneem IslamDeakin University, Victoria, Australia.
Janine SommerHospital Italiano, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Hyunggu JungBiomedical and Health Informatics, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.
Gabrielle Jacklin ElerInstituto Federal do Paraná, Londrina, Brazil.
Dari AlhuwailDepartment of Information Systems, College of Engineering & Information Technology, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, USA.
Ying-Li LeeInstitute of Biomedical Informatics, National Yang Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study presents a qualitative content analysis of nurses' satisfaction and issues with current electronic health record (EHR) systems, as reflected in one of the largest international surveys of nursing informatics. Study participants from 45 countries (n=469) ranked their satisfaction with the current state of nursing functionality in EHRs as relatively low. Two-thirds of the participants (n=283) provided disconcerting comments when explaining their low satisfaction rankings. More than one half of the comments identified issues at the system level (e.g., poor system usability; non-integrated systems and poor interoperability; lack of standards; and limited functionality/missing components), followed by user-task issues (e.g., failure of systems to meet nursing clinical needs; non nursing-specific systems) and environment issues (e.g., low prevalence of EHRs; lack of user training). The study results call for the attention of international stakeholders (educators, managers, policy makers) to improve the current issues with EHRs from a nursing perspective.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelElectronic Health RecordsNursesNursing InformaticsAttitude to ComputersHumansJob SatisfactionSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID28269961
PMCPMC5333337

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.