Comparison of the Quality and Timeliness of Vital Signs Data Using Three Different Data-Entry Devices
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
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?
In healthcare, outdated records can compromise patient safety.
“In healthcare, outdated records can compromise patient safety [46-49].”
From Data Quality in the Age of AI: A Review of Governance, Ethics, and the FAIR Principles (2025) · cites this paper as [49]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Tablet computers in support of rural and frontier clinical practice
Anderson, C., Henner, T., & Burkey, J. (2013) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2013.08.006 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Data Quality in the Age of AI: A Review of Governance, Ethics, and the FAIR Principles
Guillen-Aguinaga, M., Aguinaga-Ontoso, E., Guillen-Aguinaga, L., Guillen-Grima, F., & Aguinaga-Ontoso, I. (2025) · Data · doi:10.3390/data10120201 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
- Authors
- WAGER, K. A., SCHAFFNER, M. J., FOULOIS, B., SWANSON KAZLEY, A., PARKER, C., & WALO, H.
- Affiliations
- Medical University of South Carolina (US)
- ORCID
- PARKER, CHERYL
- 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