CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 68Nursing Diagnosis and DocumentationNursing education and managementElectronic Health Records Systems

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Essential task or meaningless burden? Nurses’ perceptions of the value of documentation

Open access
Olivares Bøgeskov, Benjamín, Grimshaw-Aagaard, Søsserr Lone Smilla·2019·Nordic Journal of Nursing Research
DOI 10.1177/2057158518773906
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Given the substantial increase in the documentation required of nurses in recent years, this article explores nurses’ perceptions of the value of documentation, and, subsequently, attempts to explain a puzzling tendency, whereby some nurses attach little value to arguably useful forms of documentation. We use data gathered from individual interviews with nursing leaders and focus-group interviews with frontline nurses at two wards in a Danish hospital. Our thematic analysis shows that nurses are divided between a positive view of documentation as something essential, and a negative one of it being a meaningless burden that distracts nurses from their ‘real’ work, contradicts their professional identity, and does not benefit the patient. However, except for some cases where the same information is registered twice (‘double registration’), we find no objective criteria for determining which types of documentation are perceived positively or negatively, as even arguably useful types are sometimes considered meaningless. We interpret this as being because of conflicting concepts of value: utility vs meaning. Using an existential theory of meaning, we argue that documentation’s practical utility alone is not sufficient to provide meaning. We thus suggest the need for finding a balance between: a) adjusting documentation requirements, b) adapting the nursing profession, and c) changing nurses’ perceptions of the value of documentation.

Overview

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 · 10.1177/2057158518773906

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

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?

  • Documentation burden associated with electronic health records is linked to clinician burnout among physicians and nurses.

    “Electronic health records (EHRs) are linked with documentation burden resulting in clinician burnout.”

    From Measurement of clinical documentation burden among physicians and nurses using electronic health records: a scoping review (2021) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Background and “A technical burden” sections link digital documentation to nurses’ workload, delays, and frustration. They do not report clinician burnout or establish the claimed link for physicians; no page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Sum MT, Chebor MA. Documentation: historical perspectives, purposes, benefits and challenges as faced by nurses. Int J Human Soc Sci 2013; 3(16): 236–240.
  2. Mammen D. Påbud for at prioritere plejen [Injunction to prioritise care]. Sygeplejersken 2017; 11: 28–29.
  3. 10.1177/010740830902900203 · DOI
  4. Urquhart C, Currell R, Grant MJ, et al. Nursing record systems: effects on nursing practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; 01: N.PAG–N.PAG.
  5. Holm-Petersen C, Wadmann S, Andersen N. Styringsreview på hospitalsområdet: Forslag til procedure- og regelforenkling [Control review in the hospital area: proposals for simplification of procedures and rules]. Copenhagen, KORA, 2015.
  6. Bøgeskov BMO. El concepto de felicidad en las obras de Søren Kierkegaard[The concept of happiness in Søren Kierkegaard’s works], 1st ed. México, DF: Universidad Iberoamericana Ciudad de México, 2015.
  7. Kierkegaard S. Kierkegaard’s writings, XVIII, without authority, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009.
  8. Kierkegaard S. Either/or Part II. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press 2013.
  9. Kierkegaard S. Kierkegaard’s writings, XV, upbuilding discourses in various spirits, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Olivares Bøgeskov, B., & Grimshaw-Aagaard, S. L. S.
Affiliations
  • Department of Nursing and Nutrition, University College Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Frederiksberg Hospital (DK)
ORCID
Grimshaw-Aagaard, Søsserr Lone Smilla
Venue
Nordic Journal of Nursing Research
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2018-06-12
Volume
39
Issue
1
Pages
9-19
ISSN
  • 0107-4083 (ISSN-L)
  • 2057-1585
  • 2057-1593
DOI
10.1177/2057158518773906
OpenAlex
W2808418849
Cited by
68
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 10
FWCI
16.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Nordic journal of nursing research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Nursing education and management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
nursing documentation, nurses' perceptions, burden, professional identity, double registration, nursing workload, documentation requirements

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