Cited by 82Electronic Health Records SystemsNursing Diagnosis and DocumentationInformation Systems Theories and Implementation

Review: evaluating information systems in nursing

Open access
Oroviogoicoechea, Cristina, Elliott, Barbara, Watson, Roger·2008·Journal of Clinical Nursing

Abstract

Aims. To review existing nursing research on inpatient hospitals’ information technology (IT) systems in order to explore new approaches for evaluation research on nursing informatics to guide further design and implementation of effective IT systems. Background. There has been an increase in the use of IT and information systems in nursing in recent years. However, there has been little evaluation of these systems and little guidance on how they might be evaluated. Methods. A literature review was conducted between 1995 and 2005 inclusive using CINAHL and Medline and the search terms ‘nursing information systems’, ‘clinical information systems’, ‘hospital information systems’, ‘documentation’, ‘nursing records’, ‘charting’. Results. Research in nursing information systems was analysed and some deficiencies and contradictory results were identified which impede a comprehensive understanding of effective implementation. There is a need for IT systems to be understood from a wider perspective that includes aspects related to the context where they are implemented. Conclusions. Social and organizational aspects need to be considered in evaluation studies and realistic evaluation can provide a framework for the evaluation of information systems in nursing. Relevance to clinical practice. The rapid introduction of IT systems for clinical practice urges evaluation of already implemented systems examining how and in what circumstances they work to guide effective further development and implementation of IT systems to enhance clinical practice. Evaluation involves more factors than just involving technologies such as changing attitudes, cultures and healthcare practices. Realistic evaluation could provide configurations of context‐mechanism‐outcomes that explain the underlying relationships to understand why and how a programme or intervention works.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.01985.x

Cites

60 of 60 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
Oroviogoicoechea, C., Elliott, B., & Watson, R.
Affiliations
Clinica Universidad de Navarra (ES)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-02-11
Volume
17
Issue
5
Pages
567-575
ISSN
  • 0962-1067 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2702
OpenAlex
W2081085022
Cited by
82
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 14
FWCI
16.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository@Hull (Worktribe) (University of Hull) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository@Hull (Worktribe) (University of Hull) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
Keywords
nursing information systems, clinical information systems, hospital information systems, information system evaluation, nursing informatics, realist evaluation, context-mechanism-outcome, nursing documentation, nursing records, electronic charting
MeSH terms
Humans, Information Systems, Job Satisfaction, Nursing

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