Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36878656›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

Time spent on documenting quality indicator data and associations between the perceived burden of documenting these data and joy in work among professionals in intensive care units in the Netherlands: a multicentre cross-sectional survey.

Gijs Hesselink, Rutger Verhage, Oscar Hoiting, Eva Verweij, Inge Janssen, Brigitte Westerhof, Gilian Ambaum, Iwan C C van der Horst, Paul de Jong, Nynke Postma and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

12 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Gijs HesselinkDepartment of Intensive Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands gijs.hesselink@radboudumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-2532-0724
Rutger VerhageDepartment of Intensive Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Oscar HoitingDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Eva VerweijDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Bernhoven Hospital, Uden, The Netherlands.
Inge JanssenDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Maas Hospital Pantein, Boxmeer, The Netherlands.
Brigitte WesterhofDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Gilian AmbaumDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Rivierenland Hospital, Tiel, The Netherlands.
Iwan C C van der HorstDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3891-8522
Paul de JongDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Slingeland Hospital, Doetinchem, The Netherlands.
Nynke PostmaDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Streekziekenhuis koningin Beatrix, Winterswijk, The Netherlands.
Johannes G van der HoevenDepartment of Intensive Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Marieke ZegersDepartment of Intensive Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7472-6184
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLCanisius-Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis · NLMaaslandziekenhuis · NLMaastricht University · NLRijnstate Hospital · NLSlingeland Ziekenhuis · NLStreekziekenhuis Koningin Beatrix · NLZiekenhuis Bernhoven · NLZiekenhuis Rivierenland · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe number of indicators used to monitor and improve the quality of care is debatable and may influence professionals' joy in work. We aimed to assess intensive care unit (ICU) professionals' perceived burden of documenting quality indicator data and its association with joy in work.

designCross-sectional survey.

settingICUs of eight hospitals in the Netherlands.

participantsHealth professionals (ie, medical specialists, residents and nurses) working in the ICU. MEASUREMENTS: The survey included reported time spent on documenting quality indicator data and validated measures for documentation burden (ie, such documentation being unreasonable and unnecessary) and elements of joy in work (ie, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, autonomy, relatedness and competence). Multivariable regression analysis was performed for each element of joy in work as a separate outcome.

resultsIn total, 448 ICU professionals responded to the survey (65% response rate). The overall median time spent on documenting quality data per working day is 60 min (IQR 30-90). Nurses spend more time documenting these data than physicians (medians of 60 min vs 35 min, p<0.01). Most professionals (n=259, 66%) often perceive such documentation tasks as unnecessary and a minority (n=71, 18%) perceive them as unreasonable. No associations between documentation burden and measures of joy in work were found, except for the negative association between unnecessary documentations and sense of autonomy (β=-0.11, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.01, p=0.03).

conclusionsDutch ICU professionals spend substantial time on documenting quality indicator data they often regard as unnecessary. Despite the lacking necessity, documentation burden had limited impact on joy in work. Future research should focus on which aspects of work are affected by documentation burden and whether diminishing the burden improves joy in work.

Indexed as

Data AccuracyQuality Indicators, Health CareCross-Sectional StudiesHumansIntensive Care UnitsNetherlandsClinical governanceHEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENTQuality in health care

Identifiers

PMID36878656
PMCPMC9990602
OpenAlexW4323348207

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.