Cited by 30Electronic Health Records SystemsNursing education and managementNursing Diagnosis and Documentation

Impacts of technology implementation on nurses' work motivation, engagement, satisfaction and well‐being: A realist review

Open access
Jedwab, Rebecca M., Manias, Elizabeth, Redley, Bernice, Dobroff, Naomi, Hutchinson, Alison M.·2023·Journal of Clinical Nursing

Abstract

Aim: To examine current literature for causal explanations on how, why and under what circumstances, implementation of a new hospital electronic medical record system or similar technology impacts nurses' work motivation, engagement, satisfaction or well‐being. Background: Implementation of new technology, such as electronic medical record systems, affects nurses and their work, workflows and inter‐personal interactions in healthcare settings. Multiple individual and organisational‐level factors can affect technology adoption by nurses and may have negative consequences for nurses and patient safety. Design: Five‐step realist review method and Realist And Meta‐narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards checklist was used to guide this review. Eight initial theories (programme theories) were used as the basis to explore, examine and refine literature from a range of sources. Data Sources: Literature from five databases (APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, Embase, IEEE Xplore and MEDLINE Complete) and grey literature (from 1 January 2000 to 31 October 2021) were systematically searched and retrieved on 4 November 2021. Results: In all, 8980 records were screened at the title and abstract level, of which 1027 full texts were screened and 10 were included in the review. Seven studies assessed concepts in both pre‐ and post‐technology implementation. Most common contexts related to knowledge, rationale and skills to use new technology. Mechanisms that impacted nurses or nursing care delivery included: nurses' involvement in technology implementation processes; nurses' perceptions, understanding and limitations of technology impact(s) on patient care delivery; social supports; skills; implementation attitude and hardware. Work satisfaction was the most frequently examined outcome. An analysis led to nine final programme theories (including two original, six revised and one new programme theory). Conclusion: Nurses must be informed about the rationale for new technology and have the knowledge and skills for its use. Understanding nurses' work motivation and attitudes related to technology adoption in the workplace can support work engagement, satisfaction and well‐being. Implications for the Profession: Complex contexts and mechanisms play a role in nurses' work motivation, engagement, satisfaction and well‐being with the implementation of new technology into healthcare settings. Relevance to Clinical Practice: Nurses, their work and workflows are all influenced by the implementation of new technologies (such as electronic medical records), which in turn has consequences for patient safety and quality of care. Patient or Public Contribution: No patient or public contribution. Prospero Registration Number: CRD42020131875 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=131875).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jocn.16730

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Jedwab, R. M., Manias, E., Redley, B., Dobroff, N., & Hutchinson, A. M.
Affiliations
Deakin University (AU)
Corresponding author
Jedwab, Rebecca M.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2023-04-21
Volume
32
Issue
17-18
Pages
6037-6060
ISSN
  • 0962-1067 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2702
OpenAlex
W4366602321
Cited by
30
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 2
FWCI
1.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Nursing (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Nursing education and management
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Keywords
electronic health records, technology implementation, nurses, employee motivation, work engagement, job satisfaction, nurse well-being, technology adoption, nursing competencies, social support, patient safety, nursing care delivery, healthcare workflow, program theory, nursing leadership and management, nursing education, nursing informatics
MeSH terms
Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Motivation, Nurses, Personal Satisfaction, Workplace

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