ArticleBMC nursing2022
A mixed-methods study of quality differences between applied documentation approaches in nursing homes.
Article in BMC nursing, 2022. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral approaches to nursing documentation exist. Some address standardised terminology and daily monitoring, whereas the structural model approach focuses on open-ended text information and special incidents. This study aims to identify quality differences between available documentation approaches from the perspectives of nursing professionals in Germany.
methodsBetween October 2018 and May 2019, a convenience sample of German nursing home practitioners was surveyed concerning the quality of their documentation techniques. The quality measurement was developed from the findings of a literature review on indicators that define successful nursing documentation. Selected indicators were structured according to Donabedian's quality dimensions of structure, process, and outcome. A mean score was calculated for each quality dimension. Non-parametric tests were employed to discover whether organisational and person-related conditions affect score values. The framework method was used to analyse textual data.
resultsResponses from 250 nursing care practitioners show significant differences between users of different documentation approaches in the outcome dimension. Nurses who worked with the structural model were slightly more satisfied with their documentation approach than users of other approaches. In addition, differences between subgroups were identified depending on the mode of the tools employed for nursing documentation, participation in training, and length of time spent using the present documentation tool. Qualitative data reveal that digitalisation, unequal task distribution, and appreciation and motivation are critical topics in nursing homes.
conclusionsThe results indicate that regular opportunities to reflect on challenges in documentation activities might increase nurses' perceptions of documentation as a valuable part of nursing care. Training might serve this purpose for users of non-structural model approaches. Regardless of the specific recording techniques employed, more investment in digital infrastructure is required.
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.