ArticleJournal of medical systems2026
The Limits of Humans in Data Gathering: Documentation Error Rates in the Electronic Health Record in the Operating Room.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We studied the accuracy of nursing electronic health record (EHR) documentation during surgical procedures focusing on time-stamping of events. In high-end manufacturing these tasks would be considered simple routine with error rates of 0.1% to 0.5%. Documentation accuracy of six key events over 10 consecutive weeks was measured. Error rates, delays in documentation, and environmental variables including operating room (OR) size, number of nurses per OR, and service line were recorded. Statistical methods included regression models, correlation analysis and analysis of variance (ANOVA). From 202 cases, 98.10% of 1240 events were captured, revealing an overall error rate of 17.01%. Delays in documentation were observed in 51.40% of events. Larger ORs, multiple nurses documenting, and delays over 20 min were linked to higher error rates. Error rates increased from 1.30% without delays to 38.43% with delays exceeding 20 min. Documentation error rates for time-stamping tasks were at a minimum 2.6 times higher than predicted and increased significantly with delays in documentation indicating that environmental complexity and stress diminish human tasks performance as well as recall of events. Our data indicate that error rates in the healthcare space are higher than in the manufacturing space for tasks of identical or similar complexity. Given the certainty and immutability of human error in task performance, our findings highlight the need for technologies to improve accuracy of EHR documentation in this critical and high complexity space.
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.