Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35781136›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical systems2022

The Analyzation of Change in Documentation due to the Introduction of Electronic Patient Records in Hospitals-A Systematic Review.

Florian Wurster, Garret Fütterer, Marina Beckmann, Kerstin Dittmer, Julia Jaschke, Juliane Köberlein-Neu, Mi-Ran Okumu, Carsten Rusniok, Holger Pfaff, Ute Karbach

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical systems, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Post-lung transplant surveillance in 2026: current practice, variability, and the need for standardization.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

10 authors.

Florian WursterFaculty of Human Sciences & Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Institute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. florian.wurster@uni-koeln.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5527-9238
Garret FüttererFaculty of Human Sciences & Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Institute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Marina BeckmannFaculty of Human Sciences & Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Institute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Kerstin DittmerFaculty of Human Sciences & Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Institute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Julia JaschkeCenter for Health Economics and Health Services Research, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany.
Juliane Köberlein-NeuCenter for Health Economics and Health Services Research, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany.
Mi-Ran OkumuFaculty of Human Sciences & Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Institute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Carsten RusniokFaculty of Human Sciences & Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Institute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Holger PfaffFaculty of Human Sciences & Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Institute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Ute KarbachFaculty of Human Sciences & Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Institute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 01GP1906B
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The major impact on healthcare through the ongoing digital transformation and new technologies results in opportunities for improving quality of care. Electronic patient records (EPR) are a substantial part in this transformation, even though their influence on documentation remains often unclear. This review aims to answer the question of which effect the introduction of the EPR has on the documentation proper in hospitals. To do this, studies are reviewed that analyze the documentation itself, rather than merely conducting interviews or surveys about it. Several databases were searched in this systematic review (PubMed including PubMed, PubMed Central and Medline; PDQ Evidence; Web of Science Core Collection; CINHAL). To be included, studies needed to analyze written documentation and empirical data, be in either German or English language, published between 2010 and 2020, conducted in a hospital setting, focused on transition from paper-based to electronic patient records, and peer reviewed. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies were included. Studies were independently screened for inclusion by two researchers in three stages (title, abstract, full text) and, in case of disagreement, discussed with a third person from the research team until consensus was reached. The main outcome assessed was whether the studies indicated a negative or positive effect on documentation (e.g. changing the completeness of documentation) by introducing an EPR. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess the individual risk of bias in the included studies. Overall, 264 studies were found. Of these, 17 met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Of all included studies, 11 of 17 proved a positive effect of the introduction of the EPR on documentation such as an improved completeness or guideline adherence of the documentation. Six of 17 showed a mixed effect with positive and negative or no changes. No study showed an exclusively negative effect. Most studies found a positive effect of EPR introduction on documentation. However, it is difficult to draw specific conclusions about how the EPR affects or does not affect documentation since the included studies examined a variety of outcomes. As a result, various scenarios are conceivable with higher or reduced burden for practitioners. Additionally, the impact on treatment remains unclear.

Indexed as

DocumentationElectronic Health RecordsHospitalsHumansDigital transformationDocumentationElectronic patient recordHospitalSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35781136
PMCPMC9252957

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.