Evaluation of interventions to improve inpatient hospital documentation within electronic health records: a systematic review
Open accessAbstract
Objective: Despite the widespread and increasing use of electronic health records (EHRs), the quality of EHRs is problematic. Efforts have been made to address reasons for poor EHR documentation quality. Previous systematic reviews have assessed intervention effectiveness within the outpatient setting or paper documentation. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of interventions seeking to improve EHR documentation within an inpatient setting. Materials and Methods: A search strategy was developed based on elaborated inclusion/exclusion criteria. Four databases, gray literature, and reference lists were searched. A REDCap data capture form was used for data extraction, and study quality was assessed using a customized tool. Data were analyzed and synthesized in a narrative, semiquantitative manner. Results: Twenty-four studies were included in this systematic review. Owing to high heterogeneity, quantitative comparison was not possible. However, statistically significant results in interventions and affected outcomes were analyzed and discussed. Education and implementation of a new EHR reporting system were the most successful interventions, as evidenced by significantly improved EHR documentation. Discussion: Heterogeneity of interventions, outcomes, document type, EHR user, and other variables led to difficulty in measuring EHR documentation quality and effectiveness of interventions. However, the use of education as a primary intervention aligned closely with existing literature in similar fields. Conclusions: Interventions implemented to enhance EHR documentation are highly variable and require standardization. Emphasis should be placed on this novel area of research to improve communication between healthcare providers and facilitate data sharing between centers and countries. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42017083494.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The usability of EHR data is generally poor.
“consistent with the notion that the usability of EHR data is generally poor [29,30].”
Negative EHR user experiences in general may result in partial data capture.
“negative EHR user experiences in general may result in partial data capture [29,32,33].”
This finding is congruent with SEDH data quality issues noted in the literature.
“This finding is congruent with SEDH data quality issues noted in the literature [28–30].”
Cites
PRISMA-P Group, Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 · Cited by 26,223 · see citing works
So, L., Beck, C. A., Brien, S., Kennedy, J., Feasby, T. E., Ghali, W. A., & Quan, H. (2010) · Health Informatics Journal · doi:10.1177/1460458210364784 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Data Quality–Driven Improvement in Health Care: Systematic Literature Review
Lighterness, A., Adcock, M., Scanlon, L. A., & Price, G. (2024) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/57615 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
“Wiebe et al [68] included 24 studies aiming to improve EHR documents such as operative reports or discharge summaries.”
Sood, N., Stetter, C., Kunselman, A., & Jasani, S. (2024) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000428 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wiebe, N., Otero Varela, L., Niven, D. J., Ronksley, P. E., Iragorri, N., & Quan, H.
- Affiliations
- University of Calgary (CA)
- Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
- Corresponding author
- Wiebe, Natalie
- Venue
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2019-07-31
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1389-1400
- ISSN
- 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-974X
- PMC
- PMC7647244
- OpenAlex
- W2965219508
- Cited by
- 42
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4
- FWCI
- 0.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- Locations
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
- Keywords
- electronic health records, documentation quality, quality improvement intervention, employee training, clinical documentation, data sharing, provider communication
- MeSH terms
- Documentation, Hospital Information Systems, Humans, Inpatients, Electronic Health Records, Quality Improvement
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review