ArticleActa medica Philippina2025
Nurses' Perceptions and Recommendations on the Safe Use of "Copy and Paste" Function in an Electronic Medical Record of a National Tertiary Hospital.
Article in Acta medica Philippina, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: This study at a national tertiary hospital in Manila, Philippines investigated the use of the "Copy and Paste" Function (CPF) within their Electronic Medical Record (EMR). While CPF has benefits and risks, little is known about its usage patterns and impact on patient safety at the institution. This study explores nurses' perceptions and recommendations on CPF use in this hospital's EMR, assessing its prevalence, impact on patient safety, associations between prevalence and impact, and providing usage recommendations. Methods: A sequential explanatory research design was employed using surveys and semi-structured interviews. Ethical clearance was obtained before data collection. Instruments were adapted from similar studies and have undergone expert validation. Content validity was confirmed, and internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach's Alpha = 0.77). Stratified random sampling determined the respondents per area. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, Spearman's rho, and thematic analysis. Results: The survey (n = 256) showed CPF use by nurses and doctors, and was confirmed by semi-structured interviews (n = 9). Nurses generally perceived CPF's impact on documentation as neutral (40.17%), leaning towards positive impact. Interviews supported this, revealing both "challenges" and "benefits" of CPF use as themes after thematic analysis. There was no statistically significant association between perceived CPF prevalence and its perceived impact on patient safety (p = 0.164). The theme "considerations for safe CPF use" also emerged from the analysis. Conclusion: This study found mixed perceptions on CPF's impact in healthcare. There is a call to continue its use, but safety measures must be implemented first. Recommendations include order verification, caution, practice standardization, selective CPF usage, additional technological features, and alternative documentation methods. A governance structure to manage EMR-related issues, such as unsafe CPF practices, is also recommended to ensure proper monitoring and response.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.