Cited by 36Electronic Health Records SystemsNursing Diagnosis and DocumentationHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring

Comparison of the Quality and Timeliness of Vital Signs Data Using Three Different Data-Entry Devices

WAGER, KAREN A., SCHAFFNER, MARILYN J., FOULOIS, BONNIE, SWANSON KAZLEY, ABBY, PARKER, CHERYL, WALO, HELENA·2010·CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing

Abstract

It is important to evaluate the impact of clinical information systems on the quality and timeliness of documentation in the patient's record to ensure the systems are improving clinical care processes and providing value to the organization. An observational study was conducted to measure the accuracy and timeliness of vital signs data during three different stages of clinical documentation system implementation at a large academic medical center: (1) a paper medical record system, (2) a clinical documentation system with "computers on wheels" workstation outside the patient's room, and (3) a clinical documentation system with a Tablet PC affixed to the vital signs monitor. Patient observations (n = 270) were completed as patient care technicians made routine vital sign rounds. Equipping patient care technicians with a Tablet PC affixed to the vital signs monitor significantly improved (P < .05) the accuracy and timeliness of vital signs. In addition, a number of unintended consequences were discovered that proved helpful to the nurse managers and nursing informatics leadership team in providing support of the new system. Findings from this study emphasize the importance of ensuring that staff has the appropriate devices needed to effectively document patient care at the bedside.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ncn.0b013e3181e1df19

Cites

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
WAGER, K. A., SCHAFFNER, M. J., FOULOIS, B., SWANSON KAZLEY, A., PARKER, C., & WALO, H.
Affiliations
Medical University of South Carolina (US)
Venue
CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing
Published
2010-07
Volume
28
Issue
4
Pages
205-212
ISSN
1538-2931 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4251075843
Cited by
36
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
4.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • CIN Computers Informatics Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Medical University of South Carolina
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 › Medicine › Surgery › Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Keywords
vital signs documentation, tablets, clinical documentation systems, documentation accuracy, patient care technicians, nursing informatics, clinical information systems
MeSH terms
Academic Medical Centers, Analysis of Variance, Computer User Training, Documentation, Education, Nursing, Continuing, Equipment Failure, Humans, Nursing Assessment, Nursing Records, Nursing Staff, Hospital, South Carolina, Time and Motion Studies, Nursing Evaluation Research, Bias, Chi-Square Distribution, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Point-of-Care Systems, Computers, Handheld, Vital Signs

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