ArticleJournal of athletic training2020
Aspects of Technology That Influence Athletic Trainers' Current Patient Care Documentation Strategies in the Secondary School.
Article in Journal of athletic training, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving Athletic Trainers' Knowledge of Clinical Documentation Through Novel Educational Interventions: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of athletic training · 2024Trial
- Athletic Trainers' Perceptions of and Experiences With Professional Development Approaches for Enhancing Clinical Documentation.Journal of athletic training · 2024Article
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
contextPrevious research on athletic trainers' (ATs) documentation practices in the secondary school setting has focused on users of 1 electronic medical record (EMR) platform. These studies have identified that ATs use multiple platforms for documentation, including paper, even when an EMR is available.
objectiveTo examine the documentation practices of ATs who use various forms of patient care documentation, including paper, EMRs, or both.
designQualitative study.
settingIndividual telephone interviews. PATIENTS OR OTHER
participantsTwenty ATs participated in this study: 12 women and 8 men who averaged 38 ± 14 years of age, 15 ± 13 years of clinical experience, and 11 ± 11 years of employment at their current secondary school. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted to gain insight into ATs' documentation practices. Three researchers and 2 auditors inductively coded the transcripts using a consensual qualitative research process that consisted of 4 rounds of consensus coding and determination of data saturation. Trustworthiness was addressed with member checking, multiple-analyst triangulation, and peer review.
resultsThe ATs' documentation practices were largely influenced by technology, organized in 3 themes. Participants' current documentation strategies included the use of both paper and EMRs, as they found different benefits to using each platform. Oftentimes documentation practices were shaped by technological challenges, including unreliable networks, software design problems, and the lack of a streamlined approach. Lastly, participants identified future strategies for improving documentation, including the need for better EMR options and streamlining their individual documentation behaviors.
conclusionsMany ATs wanted to incorporate EMRs in their clinical practice but faced challenges when attempting to do so. In turn, clinicians often duplicated documentation or used 2 platforms. Athletic trainers should communicate with administrators to select an EMR that fits their documentation needs and seek resources, such as network access and educational opportunities, to learn how to use EMRs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.