Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 2001; 40(02): 61-68
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1634465
Original Article
Schattauer GmbH

A Randomized Evaluation of a Computer-Based Nursing Documentation System

E. Ammenwerth
1   Department of Medical Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Germany
,
R. Eichstädter
2   Department of Psychiatry, University of Heidelberg, Germany
,
R. Haux
1   Department of Medical Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Germany
,
U. Pohl
3   Department of Dermatology, University of Heidelberg, Germany
,
S. Rebel
2   Department of Psychiatry, University of Heidelberg, Germany
,
S. Ziegler
4   Department of Medical Biometry, University of Heidelberg, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
07 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

A two-month randomized, controlled trial based on 60 patients has been performed on a ward of the Department of Psychiatry at Heidelberg University Medical Center, Germany, to investigate the influence of computer-based nursing documentation on time investment for documentation, quality of documentation and user acceptance. Time measurements, questionnaires, documentation analysis and interviews were used to compare patients documented with the computer-based system (PIK group) with the control group (patients documented with the paper-based system). The results showed the advantages and disadvantages of computer-based nursing documentation. Time needed for nursing care planning was lower in the PIK group. Some formal aspects of quality were considerably better in the PIK group. On the other hand, time required for documentation of tasks and for report writing was greater in the PIK group. User acceptance increased significantly during the study. The interviews indicated a positive influence of PIK on the cooperation between nurses and physicians.

Keywords

Evaluation - Nursing Documentation System - Hospital Information System - Randomized Study
 

  • References

  • 1 Fiechter V, Meier M. Pflegeplanung – Eine Anleitung für die Praxis (Nursing care planning – a practical introduction). Basel: Recom; 1993
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 2 Davis B, Billings J, Ryland R. Evaluation of nursing process documentation. J Adv Nurs 1994; 19: 960-8.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Sahlstedt S, Adolfsson H, Ehnfors M, Källström B. Nursing Process Documentation – Effects on Workload and Quality when using a Computer Program and a Key Word Model for Nursing Documentation. In: Gerdin U, Tallberg M, Wainwright P. eds. Nursing Informatics – The Impact of Nursing Knowledge on Heatlh Care Informatics. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 1997: 330-6.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 4 Varcoe C. Disparagement of the nursing process: the new dogma?. J Adv Nurs 1996; 23: 120-5.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Peterson M. Time and the nursing process. Holist Nurs Pract 1987; 1: 72-80.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Opitz E, Bürkle T, Schrader U. Nursing Information System in Germany and Europe. In: Prokosch HU, Dudeck J. eds. Hospital Information Systems: Design and Development Characteristics. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1995: 153-72.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 7 Nauert L. Savings and other benefits experienced from use of a computerized bedside documentation system. In: Turley J, Hovenga E, Marr P. eds. Nursing Informatics ‘91: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Nursing Use of Computers and Information Science. Berlin: Springer; 1991: 408-11.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 8 Büssing A, Herbig B. Recent Developments of Care Information Systems in Germany. Comput Nurs 1998; 16: 307-10.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Goossen W, Epping P, Dassen T. Criteria for Nursing Information Systems as a Component of the Electronic Patient Record: An International Delphi Study. Comput Nurs 1997; 15: 307-15.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Bowles K. The barriers and benefits of nursing information systems. Comput Nurs 1997; 15: 191-6.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Goossen W, Epping P, Abrahamn I, Dassen T, Hasman A. Problems with Nursing Information Systems: are there Solutions?. In: Brender J, Christensen JP, Scherer JR, McNair P. eds. Medical Informatics Europe ‘96. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 1996: 872-6.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 12 Saba VK. A look at nursing informatics. Int J Med Inf 1997; 44: 57-60.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 NCNR.. Report of Priority Expert Panel E: Nursing Informatics. Bethesda: NCNR (National Center for Nursing Research).; http://www.nih.gov/ninr/vol4/Contents.html (Last access: July 2000).
  • 14 Manning J, McConnell EA. Technology Assessment – A Framework for Generating Questions Useful in Evaluation Nursing Information Systems. Comput Nurs 1997; 15: 141-6.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Rotman B, Sullivan A, McDonald T. et al. A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Computer-based Physician Workstation in an Outpatient Setting: Implementation Barriers to Outcome Evaluation. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1996; 3: 340-8.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Brown SJ, Cioffi MA, Schinella P, Shaw A. Evaluation of the Impact of a Bedside Terminal System in a Rapidly Changing Community Hospital. Comput Nurs 1995; 13 (Suppl. 06) 280-4.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Bürkle T, Kuch R, Prokosch H, Dudeck J. Stepwise Evaluation of Information Systems in a University Hospital. Method Inform Med 1999; 38: 9-15.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Burkes M. Identifying and relating nurses’ attitudes toward computer use. Comput Nurs 1991; 9: 190-201.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Dennis K, Sweeney P, Macdonald L, Morse N. Point of care technology: impact on people and paperwork. Nurs Econ 1993; 11: 229-37 248.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Dillon T, McDowell D, Salimian F, Conklin D. Perceived Ease of Use and Usefulness of Bedside-Computer Systems. Comput Nurs 1998; 16: 151-6.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Eurlings F, van Asten A, Cozijn H. et al. Effects of a Nursing Information System in 5 Dutch Hospitals. In: Gerdin U, Tallberg M, Wainwright P. eds. Nursing Informatics – The Impact of Nursing Knowledge on Health Care Informatics. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 1997: 50-5.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 22 Garrett L, Hammond W, Stead W. The Effects of Computerized Medical Records on Provider Efficiency and Quality of Care. Method Inform Med 1986; 25: 151-7.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Grier M, Ziomek R. Evaluation of a computerized nursing information system. In: Hannah K, Guillemin E, Conklin D. eds. Proc. of the IFIP-IMIA International Symposium on Nursing Uses of Computers and Information Science. Amsterdam: North-Holland; 1985: 293-302.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 24 Hammond J, Johnson H, Varas R, Ward C. A Qualitative Comparison of Paper Flow-sheets vs a Computer-Based Clinical Information System. Chest 1991; 99: 155-7.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Hendrickson G, Kovner CT. Effects of computers on nursing resource use: Do computers save time?. Comput Nurs 1990; 8: 16-22.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Hinson D, Huether S, Blaufuss J. et al. Measuring the impact of a clinical nursing information system on one nursing unit. In: Proceedings 17th Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Healthcare SCAMC. New York: Mc Graw-Hill; 1994: 203-10.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 27 Johnson D, Burkes M, Sittig D, Hinson D, Pryor T. Evaluation of the effects of computerized nurse charting. In: Stead W. ed. Proceedings of the 11th Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care. Los Angeles: 1987: 363-7.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 28 Kahl K, Ivancin L, Fuhrmann M. Automated Nursing Documentation System Provides a Favorable Return on Investment. JONA 1991; 21: 44-51.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Lowry C. Nurses’ attitudes toward compute-rised care plans in intensive care. Part 2. Nurs Crit Care 1994; 10: 2-11.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Lyness A, Hravnak M, Martich D. Nurses’ Perceptions of the impact of a Computerized Information System on a Critical Care Unit. In: Gerding U, Tallberg M, Wainwright P. eds. Nursing Informatics – The Impact of Nursing Knowledge on Health Care Informatics. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 1997: 463-8.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 31 Marasovic C, Kenney C, Elliott D, Sindhusake D. A comparison of nursing activities associated with manual and automated documentation in an Australian intensive care unit. Comput Nurs 1997; 15: 205-11.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Marr P, Duthie E, Glassman K. Bedside terminals and quality of nursing documentation. Comput Nurs 1993; 11: 176-82.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Milholland D. Information Systems in Critical Care: A Measure of Their Effectiveness. In: Greenes R, Peterson H, Protti D. eds. Medinfo 95 – Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on Medical Informatics. Amsterdam: North Holland; 1995: 395-9.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 34 Minda S, Brundage D. Time Differences in Handwritten and Computer Documentation of Nursing Assessment. Comput Nurs 1994; 12: 277-9.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Pabst MK, Scherubel JC, Minnick AF. The Impact of Computerized Documentation on Nurses’ Use of Time. Comput Nurs 1996; 14: 25-30.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Petrucci K. Evaluation of UNIS: Urological Nursing Information System. In: 15th Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Healthcare. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1992: 43-7.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 37 Prophet C, Krall M, Budreau G. et al. Evaluation of online documentation. In: Chute C. ed. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp. Philadelphia: Hanley & Belfus; 1998: 255-9.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 38 Sasaki H, Sukeda H, Matsua H. et al. Mobile PCIS: Point-of-Care Information Systems with Portable Terminals. In: Cesnik B, McCray A, Scherrer J-R. eds. Medinfo ‘98 – Proceedings fo the Ninth World Congree on Medical Informatics. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 1998: 990-4.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 39 Simborg D, McDonald L, Liebman J, Musco P. Ward information management system – an evaluation. Comput Biomed Res 1972; 5: 484-97.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Simpson G, Kenrick M. Nurses’ attitudes towards computerization in clinical practice in a British general hospital. Comput Nurs 1997; 15: 37-42.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Tolbert S, Pertuz A. Study Shows How Computerization Affects Nursing Activities in ICU. Nursing 1977; 51: 79-84.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 van Gennip E, Klaassen-Leil C, Stokman R, van Valkenburg R. Technology assessment of an integrated nursing information system in three Dutch hospitals. In: Grobe S, Pluyter-Wenting E. eds. Nursing Informatics: An International Overview of Nursing in a Technological Era. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1994: 715-20.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 43 White C, Hemby C. Automating the Bedside. Healthcare Informatics 1997; 14: 68-74.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Hanisch P, Honan S, Torkelson R. Quality improvement approach to nursing care planning: implementing practical computerized standards. J Health Qual 1993; 15: 6-12.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 Newton C. A Decision Support Database for Nurse Care Planning as Part of a Hospital Information System. In: Greenes R, Peterson H, Protti D. eds. Medinfo 95 – Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on Medical Informatics. Amsterdam: North Holland; 1995
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 46 Keller L, McDermott S, Alt-White A. Effects of Computerized Nurse Careplanning on Selected Health Care Effectiveness Measures. In: 15th Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Healthcare. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1992: 38-41.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 47 University Medical Center Heidelberg.. Framework concept for the Hospital Information System of the University Medical Center Heidelberg 1997-2002 (in German). Department of Medical Informatics; Heidelberg: 1997. http://www.med.uni-heidelberg.de/midepartment/service/rahmenko.zip
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 48 Büssing A, Herbig B. The Challenges of a Care Information System Reflecting Holistic Nursing Care. Comput Nurs 1998; 16: 311-7.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 49 Ammenwerth E, Eichstädter R, Haux R. et al. Systematic evaluation of a nursing documentation system (in German), Report No. 2/99. Department of Medical Informatics, University Medical Center; Heidelberg: 1999
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 50 Nickell G, Pinto J. The Computer Attitude Scale. Comp Human Behav 1986; 2: 301-6.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 51 Bowman G, Thompson D, Sutton T. Nurses’ attitudes towards the nursing process. J Adv Nurs 1983; 8: 125-9.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 52 Ohmann C, Boy O, Yang Q, Eich HP. Evaluierung der Benutzerzufriedenheit mit einem Krankenhaus-Informationssystem: Theoretische Aspekte und klinische Anwen-dung. In: Muche R, Büchele G, Harder D, Gaus W. eds. Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie – GMDS ‘97. München: MMV Medizin; 1997: 31-4.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 53 Chin J. Development of a tool measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface. In: Chi’88 Conf. Proceedings: Human factors in Computing. New York: Association for Computing Machinery; 1988: 213-8.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 54 Tierney W, Overhage J, McDonald C. A Plea for Controlled Trials in Medical Informatics. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1994; 1: 353-5.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 55 Forsythe DE, Buchanan BG. Broadening our approach to evaluating medical information systems. In: Clayton P. ed. 15th Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1992: 8-12.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 56 Montserrat M-B, Planas I, Palau J. et al. Assessing Physician’s Expectations and Attitudes Toward Hospital Information Systems – The IMASIS Experience. M. D. Computing. 1999: 73-6.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 57 Friedman CP, Wyatt JC. Evaluation Methods in Medical Informatics. New York: Springer; 1997
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 58 Brender J. Trends in assessment of IT-based solutions in healthcare and recommendations for the future. Int J Med Inf 1998; 52: 217-27.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 59 Kaplan B. Addressing Organizational Issues into the Evaluation of Medical Systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1997; 4: 94-101.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 60 Sittig DF. Work Sampling: A Statistical Approach to Evaluation of the Effect of Computers on Work Patterns in the Health-care Industry. Method Inform Med 1993; 32: 167-74.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 61 Opitz E. Stand der DV-Unterstützung des Pflegeprozesses in Deutschland. In: Pöppl SJ, Lipinski HG, Mansky T. eds. Medizinische Informatik. Ein integrierender Teil arztunterstützender Technologien. Tagungs-band der 38. Jahrestagung der GMDS. Mün-chen: MMV Medizin Verlag; 1993: 91-5.
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 62 Ball M, Collen M. eds. Aspects of the Computer-based Patient Record. Computers in Health Care. New York: Springer; 1992
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 63 Atkinson C, Peel V. Transforming a Hospital through Growing, not Building, an Electronic Patient Record System. Method Inform Med 1998; 37: 285-303.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 64 Trill R. Kosten-Nutzen-Überlegungen beim Einsatz von EDV-Systemen für Pflegeplanung und -dokumentation. PR-Internet 1999; 4: 92-6.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 65 Hannah K, Edwards M. Design Issues for Nursing Information System. In: Prokosch HU, Dudeck J. eds. Hospital Information Systems: Design and Development Characteristics. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1995
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 66 Ammenwerth E, Buchauer A, Bludau B, Haux R. Mobile information and communication tools in the hospital. Int J Med Inf 2000; 57: 21-40.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 67 Ammenwerth E, Ehlers F, Eichstädter R. et al. Analysis and Modeling of the Treatment Process Characterizing the Cooperation within Multiprofessional Teams. In: Hasman A, Blobel B, Dudeck J. et al., eds. Medical Infobahn for Europe – Proceeding of MIE 2000 and GMDS 2000. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2000: 57-9.
    Search in Google Scholar