Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33113237›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical nursing2021

Designing paper-based records to improve the quality of nursing documentation in hospitals: A scoping review.

Naomi Muinga, Ibukun-Oluwa Omolade Abejirinde, Chris Paton, Mike English, Marjolein Zweekhorst

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical nursing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A quality improvement initiative to reduce the time to initial maternal visit in the neonatal intensive care unit.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

5 authors.

Naomi MuingaAthena Institute, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0749-0255
Ibukun-Oluwa Omolade AbejirindeInternational Program Evaluation Unit, SickKids Centre for Global Child Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0139-0541
Chris PatonNuffield Department of Medicine, Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6952-9621
Mike EnglishKEMRI/Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7427-0826
Marjolein ZweekhorstAthena Institute, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7015-4951

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 107769/Z/10/ZWellcome Trust #207522
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInpatient nursing documentation facilitates multi-disciplinary team care and tracking of patient progress. In both high- and low- and middle-income settings, it is largely paper-based and may be used as a template for electronic medical records. However, there is limited evidence on how they have been developed.

objectiveTo synthesise evidence on how paper-based nursing records have been developed and implemented in inpatient settings to support documentation of nursing care.

designA scoping review guided by the Arksey and O'Malley framework and reported using PRISMA-ScR guidelines. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies that described the process of designing paper-based inpatient records and excluded those focussing on electronic records. Included studies were published in English up to October 2019. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane supplemented by free-text searches on Google Scholar and snowballing the reference sections of included papers.

results12 studies met the eligibility criteria. We extracted data on study characteristics, the development process and outcomes related to documentation of inpatient care. Studies reviewed followed a process of problem identification, literature review, chart (re)design, piloting, implementation and evaluation but varied in their execution of each step. All studies except one reported a positive change in inpatient documentation or the adoption of charts amid various challenges.

conclusionsThe approaches used seemed to work for each of the studies but could be strengthened by following a systematic process. Human-centred Design provides a clear process that prioritises the healthcare professional's needs and their context to deliver a usable product. Problems with the chart could be addressed during the design phase rather than during implementation, thereby promoting chart ownership and uptake since users are involved throughout the design. This will translate to better documentation of inpatient care thus facilitating better patient tracking, improved team communication and better patient outcomes. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Paper-based charts should be designed in a systematic and clear process that considers patient's and healthcare professional's needs contributing to improved uptake of charts and therefore better documentation.

Indexed as

DocumentationNursing RecordsAdolescentAdultAgedAustraliaChildElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHospitalsHumansInfant, NewbornMalechartingdocumentationinpatientnursing recordsobservation chartspaperreview

Identifiers

PMID33113237
PMCPMC7894495

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.