Cited by 42Electronic Health Records SystemsNursing Diagnosis and DocumentationMedical Coding and Health Information

Evaluation of interventions to improve inpatient hospital documentation within electronic health records: a systematic review

Open access
Wiebe, Natalie, Otero Varela, Lucia, Niven, Daniel J, Ronksley, Paul E, Iragorri, Nicolas, Quan, Hude·2019·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1093/jamia/ocz081

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
Published
2019-07-31
Volume
26
Issue
11
Pages
1389-1400
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
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
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