Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35079610›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of nursing sciences2022

Challenges using electronic nursing routine data for outcome analyses: A mixed methods study.

Renate Nantschev, Elske Ammenwerth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of nursing sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors.

Renate NantschevUMIT - Private University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria.
Elske AmmenwerthUMIT - Private University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo explore the challenges of secondary use of routinely collected data for analyzing nursing-sensitive outcomes in Austrian acute care hospitals.

methodA convergent parallel mixed methods design was performed. We conducted a quantitative representative survey with nursing managers from 32 Austrian general acute care hospitals and 11 qualitative semi-structured interviews with nursing quality management experts. Both results were first analyzed independently and afterward merged in the discussion.

resultsOn average, 76% of nursing documentation is already electronically supported in the surveyed Austrian hospitals. However, existing nursing data is seldom used for secondary purposes such as nursing-sensitive outcome analyses. This is due to four major reasons: First, hospitals often do not have a data strategy for the secondary use of routine data. Second, hospitals partly lack the use of standardized and uniform nursing terminologies, especially for nursing evaluation. Third, routine nursing data is often not documented correctly and completely. Fourth, data on nursing-sensitive outcomes is usually collected in specific documentation forms not integrated into routine documentation.

conclusionThe awareness of the possibilities for secondary use of nursing data for nursing-sensitive outcome analyses in Austrian hospitals is still in its infancy. Therefore, nursing staff and nursing management must be trained to understand how to collect and process nursing data for nursing-sensitive outcome analyses. Further studies would be interesting in order to determine the factors that influence the decision-making processes for the secondary use of nursing data for outcome analyses.

Indexed as

AustriaHealth care quality indicatorsNursing care planNursing informaticsRoutinely collected health dataSecondary useStandardized nursing terminology

Identifiers

PMID35079610
PMCPMC8766780

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.