Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38241076›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2024

The Implementation of an Electronic Medical Record in a German Hospital and the Change in Completeness of Documentation: Longitudinal Document Analysis.

Florian Wurster, Marina Beckmann, Natalia Cecon-Stabel, Kerstin Dittmer, Till Jes Hansen, Julia Jaschke, Juliane Köberlein-Neu, Mi-Ran Okumu, Carsten Rusniok, Holger Pfaff and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

11 authors.

Florian WursterChair of Quality Development and Evaluation in Rehabilitation, Institute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science, Faculty of Human Sciences & Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5527-9238
Marina BeckmannChair of Quality Development and Evaluation in Rehabilitation, Institute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science, Faculty of Human Sciences & Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9826-3575
Natalia Cecon-StabelChair of Quality Development and Evaluation in Rehabilitation, Institute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science, Faculty of Human Sciences & Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2548-5986
Kerstin DittmerChair of Quality Development and Evaluation in Rehabilitation, Institute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science, Faculty of Human Sciences & Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3390-1377
Till Jes HansenChair of Quality Development and Evaluation in Rehabilitation, Institute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science, Faculty of Human Sciences & Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6175-7670
Julia JaschkeCenter for Health Economics and Health Services Research, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3424-2588
Juliane Köberlein-NeuCenter for Health Economics and Health Services Research, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3451-7847
Mi-Ran OkumuChair of Quality Development and Evaluation in Rehabilitation, Institute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science, Faculty of Human Sciences & Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9301-8829
Carsten RusniokChair of Quality Development and Evaluation in Rehabilitation, Institute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science, Faculty of Human Sciences & Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5383-4549
Holger PfaffChair of Quality Development and Evaluation in Rehabilitation, Institute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science, Faculty of Human Sciences & Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9154-6575
Ute KarbachChair of Quality Development and Evaluation in Rehabilitation, Institute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science, Faculty of Human Sciences & Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3479-9474

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectronic medical records (EMR) are considered a key component of the health care system's digital transformation. The implementation of an EMR promises various improvements, for example, in the availability of information, coordination of care, or patient safety, and is required for big data analytics. To ensure those possibilities, the included documentation must be of high quality. In this matter, the most frequently described dimension of data quality is the completeness of documentation. In this regard, little is known about how and why the completeness of documentation might change after the implementation of an EMR.

objectiveThis study aims to compare the completeness of documentation in paper-based medical records and EMRs and to discuss the possible impact of an EMR on the completeness of documentation.

methodsA retrospective document analysis was conducted, comparing the completeness of paper-based medical records and EMRs. Data were collected before and after the implementation of an EMR on an orthopaedical ward in a German academic teaching hospital. The anonymized records represent all treated patients for a 3-week period each. Unpaired, 2-tailed t tests, chi-square tests, and relative risks were calculated to analyze and compare the mean completeness of the 2 record types in general and of 10 specific items in detail (blood pressure, body temperature, diagnosis, diet, excretions, height, pain, pulse, reanimation status, and weight). For this purpose, each of the 10 items received a dichotomous score of 1 if it was documented on the first day of patient care on the ward; otherwise, it was scored as 0.

resultsThe analysis consisted of 180 medical records. The average completeness was 6.25 (SD 2.15) out of 10 in the paper-based medical record, significantly rising to an average of 7.13 (SD 2.01) in the EMR (t

conclusionsImplementing EMRs can influence the completeness of documentation, with a possible change in both increased and decreased completeness. However, the mechanisms that determine those changes are often neglected. There are mechanisms that might facilitate an improved completeness of documentation and could decrease or increase the staff's burden caused by documentation tasks. Research is needed to take advantage of these mechanisms and use them for mutual profit in the interests of all stakeholders.

trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS00023343; https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00023343.

Indexed as

clinical documentationdigital transformationdocument analysiselectronic medical recordEMRGermanyhealth services researchhospitalimplementation

Identifiers

PMID38241076
PMCPMC10837754

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.