A Randomized Evaluation of a Computer-Based Nursing Documentation System

E. Ammenwerth; R. Eichstädter; R. Haux; U. Pohl; S. Rebel; S. Ziegler

doi:10.1055/s-0038-1634465

Methods of Information in Medicine, Table of Contents

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

¹Department of Medical Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Germany

,

R. Eichstädter

²Department of Psychiatry, University of Heidelberg, Germany

,

R. Haux

¹Department of Medical Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Germany

,

U. Pohl

³Department of Dermatology, University of Heidelberg, Germany

,

S. Rebel

²Department of Psychiatry, University of Heidelberg, Germany

,

S. Ziegler

⁴Department of Medical Biometry, University of Heidelberg, Germany

› Author Affiliations

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

Full Text

References

References
1 Fiechter V, Meier M. Pflegeplanung – Eine Anleitung für die Praxis (Nursing care planning – a practical introduction). Basel: Recom; 1993
2 Davis B, Billings J, Ryland R. Evaluation of nursing process documentation. J Adv Nurs 1994; 19: 960-8.
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.
4 Varcoe C. Disparagement of the nursing process: the new dogma?. J Adv Nurs 1996; 23: 120-5.
5 Peterson M. Time and the nursing process. Holist Nurs Pract 1987; 1: 72-80.
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.
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.
8 Büssing A, Herbig B. Recent Developments of Care Information Systems in Germany. Comput Nurs 1998; 16: 307-10.
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.
10 Bowles K. The barriers and benefits of nursing information systems. Comput Nurs 1997; 15: 191-6.
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.
12 Saba VK. A look at nursing informatics. Int J Med Inf 1997; 44: 57-60.
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.
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.
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.
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.
18 Burkes M. Identifying and relating nurses’ attitudes toward computer use. Comput Nurs 1991; 9: 190-201.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
25 Hendrickson G, Kovner CT. Effects of computers on nursing resource use: Do computers save time?. Comput Nurs 1990; 8: 16-22.
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.
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.
28 Kahl K, Ivancin L, Fuhrmann M. Automated Nursing Documentation System Provides a Favorable Return on Investment. JONA 1991; 21: 44-51.
29 Lowry C. Nurses’ attitudes toward compute-rised care plans in intensive care. Part 2. Nurs Crit Care 1994; 10: 2-11.
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.
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.
32 Marr P, Duthie E, Glassman K. Bedside terminals and quality of nursing documentation. Comput Nurs 1993; 11: 176-82.
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.
34 Minda S, Brundage D. Time Differences in Handwritten and Computer Documentation of Nursing Assessment. Comput Nurs 1994; 12: 277-9.
35 Pabst MK, Scherubel JC, Minnick AF. The Impact of Computerized Documentation on Nurses’ Use of Time. Comput Nurs 1996; 14: 25-30.
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.
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.
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.
39 Simborg D, McDonald L, Liebman J, Musco P. Ward information management system – an evaluation. Comput Biomed Res 1972; 5: 484-97.
40 Simpson G, Kenrick M. Nurses’ attitudes towards computerization in clinical practice in a British general hospital. Comput Nurs 1997; 15: 37-42.
41 Tolbert S, Pertuz A. Study Shows How Computerization Affects Nursing Activities in ICU. Nursing 1977; 51: 79-84.
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.
43 White C, Hemby C. Automating the Bedside. Healthcare Informatics 1997; 14: 68-74.
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.
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
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.
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
48 Büssing A, Herbig B. The Challenges of a Care Information System Reflecting Holistic Nursing Care. Comput Nurs 1998; 16: 311-7.
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
50 Nickell G, Pinto J. The Computer Attitude Scale. Comp Human Behav 1986; 2: 301-6.
51 Bowman G, Thompson D, Sutton T. Nurses’ attitudes towards the nursing process. J Adv Nurs 1983; 8: 125-9.
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.
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.
54 Tierney W, Overhage J, McDonald C. A Plea for Controlled Trials in Medical Informatics. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1994; 1: 353-5.
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.
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.
57 Friedman CP, Wyatt JC. Evaluation Methods in Medical Informatics. New York: Springer; 1997
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.
59 Kaplan B. Addressing Organizational Issues into the Evaluation of Medical Systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1997; 4: 94-101.
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.
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.
62 Ball M, Collen M. eds. Aspects of the Computer-based Patient Record. Computers in Health Care. New York: Springer; 1992
63 Atkinson C, Peel V. Transforming a Hospital through Growing, not Building, an Electronic Patient Record System. Method Inform Med 1998; 37: 285-303.
64 Trill R. Kosten-Nutzen-Überlegungen beim Einsatz von EDV-Systemen für Pflegeplanung und -dokumentation. PR-Internet 1999; 4: 92-6.
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
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.
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.