Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40291462›Full record

ArticleGlobal qualitative nursing research

Primary Care Nurses' Experiences of Structured Documentation: A Qualitative Interview Study.

Anna Dalsten Hjort, Tora Hammar, Karin Myrberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global qualitative nursing research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. 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

3 authors.

Anna Dalsten HjortCentre for Research and Development, Region Gävleborg/Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Tora HammarDepartment of Medicine and Optometry, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, eHealth Institute, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1549-2469
Karin MyrbergCentre for Research and Development, Region Gävleborg/Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7934-0109

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Healthcare is undergoing an unprecedented technological transition to structured documentation in electronic health records (EHR), which has the potential to increase the quality of documentation. However, given the rising demand for direct transfer of data, there is a risk that requirements for more documentation will follow. This study seeks to investigate primary care nurses' experiences of structured documentation with direct transfer to a national quality registry. Nine primary care nurses using structured documentation in their management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients were recruited from different Swedish regions. The semi-structured interviews addressed experiences and work procedures when using a structured documentation template with direct data transfer to a quality register. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Data were framed according to five key concepts; patient safety, time-saving work methods, quality of care, equitable care, and professional autonomy. The nurses experienced some barriers in relation to structured documentation but mainly observed benefits, raising the potential to enhance equitable care and safety for patients with COPD in primary care. Professional experience and autonomy were described as important prerequisites in achieving these benefits. The findings from this study can contribute to strengthening the documentation work procedures of nurses.

Indexed as

documentation qualityelectronic health recordnursingnursing workloadqualitative researchstructured documentationSweden

Identifiers

PMID40291462
PMCPMC12033446

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.