Cited by 76Hospital Admissions and OutcomesElectronic Health Records SystemsNursing Diagnosis and Documentation

Why patient summaries in electronic health records do not provide the cognitive support necessary for nurses’ handoffs on medical and surgical units: Insights from interviews and observations

Staggers, Nancy, Clark, Lauren, Blaz, Jacquelyn W., Kapsandoy, Seraphine·2011·Health Informatics Journal

Abstract

Patient care handoffs are cognitively intense activities, especially on medical and surgical units where nurses synthesize information across an average of four to five patients every shift. The objective of this study was to examine handoffs and nurses' use of computerized patient summary reports in an electronic health record after computerized provider order entry (CPOE) was installed. We observed and audio taped 93 patient handoffs on 25 occasions on 5 acute care units in 2 different facilities sharing a vendor's electronic health record. We found that the computerized patient summary report and the electronic health record were minimally used during the handoff and that the existing patient summary reports did not provide adequate cognitive support for nurses. The patient summary reports were incomplete, rigid and did not offer "at a glance" information, or help nurses encode information. We make recommendations about a redesign of patient summary reports and technology to support the cognitive needs of nurses during handoffs at the change of shift.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1460458211405809

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Existing EHR handoff summaries were too rigid and incomplete to be useful and interfered with the receiving nurse's encoding of information via note taking.

    “Staggers et al31 found that existing EHR handoff summaries were too rigid and incomplete to be useful; additionally, they interfered with the receiving nurse's encoding of information via note taking.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Staggers, N., Clark, L., Blaz, J. W., & Kapsandoy, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
Corresponding author
Staggers, Nancy
Venue
Health Informatics Journal
Published
2011-09
Volume
17
Issue
3
Pages
209-223
ISSN
  • 1355-4743 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-4582
  • 1741-2811
OpenAlex
W2087047151
Cited by
76
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 5
FWCI
8.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Health Informatics Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Keywords
patient handover, electronic health records, cognitive support, nurses, computerized physician order entry, shift handover, medical-surgical units, information design, clinical decision support
MeSH terms
Academic Medical Centers, Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Cancer Care Facilities, Cognition, Continuity of Patient Care, Female, Forms and Records Control, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Interviews as Topic, Male, Middle Aged, Nurses, Surgery Department, Hospital, Tape Recording, United States, Young Adult, Electronic Health Records

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