Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40294588›Full record

ArticleJMIR nursing2025

Evaluating Nurses' Perceptions of Documentation in the Electronic Health Record: Multimethod Analysis.

Deborah Jacques, John Will, Denise Dauterman, Kathleen Evanovich Zavotsky, Barbara Delmore, Glenn Robert Doty, Kerry O'Brien, Lisa Groom

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors.

Deborah Jacques *Department of Health Informatics, Medical Center Information Technology, NYU Langone Health, One Park Avenue, 12 Fl., New York, NY, 10016, United States, 1 646-784-1726.ORCID 0009-0005-4170-0614
John Will *Department of Health Informatics, Medical Center Information Technology, NYU Langone Health, One Park Avenue, 12 Fl., New York, NY, 10016, United States, 1 646-784-1726.ORCID 0000-0002-3581-240X
Denise Dauterman *Department of Health Informatics, Medical Center Information Technology, NYU Langone Health, One Park Avenue, 12 Fl., New York, NY, 10016, United States, 1 646-784-1726.ORCID 0009-0005-2412-8302
Kathleen Evanovich Zavotsky *Department of Nursing, Center for Innovations in the Advancement of Care, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0009-0006-8897-3668
Barbara Delmore *Department of Nursing, Center for Innovations in the Advancement of Care, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6930-4569
Glenn Robert Doty *Department of Health Informatics, Medical Center Information Technology, NYU Langone Health, One Park Avenue, 12 Fl., New York, NY, 10016, United States, 1 646-784-1726.ORCID 0009-0006-0007-5346
Kerry O'Brien *Department of Health Informatics, Medical Center Information Technology, NYU Langone Health, One Park Avenue, 12 Fl., New York, NY, 10016, United States, 1 646-784-1726.ORCID 0009-0008-5923-3526
Lisa Groom *Department of Health Informatics, Medical Center Information Technology, NYU Langone Health, One Park Avenue, 12 Fl., New York, NY, 10016, United States, 1 646-784-1726.ORCID 0000-0002-7075-0216

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Nurses are one of the largest user groups of the electronic health record (EHR) system, relying on its tools to support patient care and nursing workflows. Recent studies suggested that the redesign of nursing documentation may reduce the time spent in the EHR system and improve nurse satisfaction. Objective: We aimed to assess nurses' perceptions of the redesigned EHR, evaluate the impact of documentation interventions, and identify future improvement needs. Methods: Guided by the American Nursing Informatics Association's Six Domains of Burden conceptual framework, this multimethod project combined both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Registered nurses across the academic health system were recruited via email invitations to participate in focus group discussions. The focus groups were conducted via a web conference and ranged from 60 to 90 minutes in duration. The focus group discussions were transcribed and analyzed through thematic analysis. The EHR vendor's time data were used to analyze nurses' time spent in documentation. Results: In total, 20 registered nurses participated in the focus group discussions, and 17 nurses completed the demographic survey; 88% (15/17) of participants had ≥3 years of EHR experience at the academic health system, and 53% (9/17) self-reported being competent in the EHR system. The following six themes emerged: positive feedback, usability and workflow opportunities, nuisance, training and education, communication, and time spent in the system. EHR vendor time data revealed that the time spent in flowsheets averaged 31.11% per 12-hour shift. Conclusions: Overall, participants reported a positive experience and that the EHR supported patient care. There are opportunities to further reduce redundancies in documentation and implement programs that support continuous learning about EHR and health technology tools. Specific suggestions include optimizing the oral health assessment tool. Analyzing frontline nursing perspectives in the redesign of EHR workflows is imperative for identifying interventions that support nurses' satisfaction with the EHR.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelDocumentationElectronic Health RecordsNursesNursing Staff, HospitalAdultFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnairesdocumentationdocumentation burdenelectronic health recordfocus groupnurseusability

Identifiers

PMID40294588
PMCPMC12052386

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.