Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40117572›Full record

Observational studyJMIR formative research2025

Exploring Physicians' Dual Perspectives on the Transition From Free Text to Structured and Standardized Documentation Practices: Interview and Participant Observational Study.

Olga Golburean, Rune Pedersen, Line Melby, Arild Faxvaag

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Olga GolbureanDepartment of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, NTNU-Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0009-0004-0129-1740
Rune PedersenNorwegian Centre for E-Health Research, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-9032-4153
Line MelbyDepartment of Health Research, SINTEF Digital, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-4507-0198
Arild FaxvaagDepartment of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, NTNU-Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-6510-7306

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical documentation plays a crucial role in providing and coordinating care. Despite the widespread adoption of electronic health record (EHR) systems, many end users still document clinical data in a manner similar to traditional paper-based records. To fully leverage the benefits of EHR systems, it is necessary to adopt new documentation approaches that facilitate easy access to information at the point of care and seamless exchange of information across health care facilities.

objectiveWe aimed to evaluate how the transition from an older EHR system to a cross-institutional EHR system impacts physicians' documentation practices and gain a deeper understanding of the factors influencing their choice between free text and structured and standardized documentation methods.

methodsA qualitative study was conducted between September 2023 and January 2024. It involved participant observations and individual semistructured interviews with physicians at a university hospital in Norway. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.

resultsThe analysis revealed 3 main themes. First, physicians encountered challenges during the implementation phase of the new EHR system due to its complexity and their unfamiliarity with its use. However, with time, physicians gradually adopted new documentation processes. This integration or adoption primarily occurred by learning through practical experience and collaborative knowledge exchange with their peers. Second, although the implementation of the new EHR system had increased structured and standardized clinical documentation, free text remained the preferred method, with some exceptions. In addition, the fact that many physicians still relied on free-text documentation created a sense of distrust among them toward some of the standardized clinical data. Finally, the informants had mixed perceptions of Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine-Clinical Terms. Some viewed it as a more nuanced terminology system, while others found it more complex. Most informants found using templates for routine procedures beneficial as it saved time in the documentation process and ensured that all necessary parameters and documentation requirements were met.

conclusionsThe study findings revealed that physicians' acceptance of new documentation processes is influenced by various social and technological factors. These factors include previous documentation experiences, perceived benefits, familiarity with the EHR system, time constraints, and user-friendliness of the system. While physicians generally have a positive attitude toward using templates for routine procedures, they often create their own templates, and data within these templates are documented in a free-text format. To address this, health care organizations should consider implementing common standardized or semistandardized templates to reduce disparities in documentation, enhance data recording, and ensure adherence to guidelines. Furthermore, to facilitate the transition to the new documentation processes, we recommend providing physicians with customized training programs and platforms for tacit knowledge exchange.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelDocumentationElectronic Health RecordsPhysiciansAdultFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedNorwayQualitative Researchdocumentationdocumentation practiceEHRelectronic health recordinteroperabilitysecondary use of datastandardized documentationstructured documentation

Identifiers

PMID40117572
PMCPMC11971576

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.