Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Introduction

This systematic review attempts to answer the following question – which strategies to improve clinical nursing documentation have been most effective in the acute hospital setting?

Methods

A keyword search for relevant studies was conducted in CINAHL and Medline in May 2019 and October 2020.

Studies were appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal for quasi-experimental studies. The studies were graded for level of evidence according to GRADE principles.

The data collected in each study were added to a Summary of Data (SOD) spreadsheet. Pre intervention and a post intervention percentage compliance scores were calculated for each study where possible i.e. (mean score/possible total score) × (100/1). A percentage change in compliance for each study was calculated by subtracting the pre intervention score from the post intervention score. The change in compliance score and the post intervention compliance score were both added to the SOD and used as a basis for comparison between the studies. Each study was analyzed thematically in terms of the intervention strategies used. Compliance rates and the interventions used were compared to determine if any strategies were effective in achieving a meaningful improvement in compliance.

Results

Seventy six full text articles were reviewed for this systematic review. Fifty seven of the studies were before and after studies and 66 were conducted in western countries. Publishing dates for the studies ranged from 1991 to 2020.

Eleven studies included documentation audits with personal feedback as one of the strategies used to improve nursing documentation. Ten of these studies achieved a post intervention compliance rate ≥ 70%.

Conclusion

Notwithstanding the limitations of this study, it may be that documentation audit with personal feedback, when combined with other context specific strategies, is a reliable method for gaining meaningful improvements in clinical nursing documentation. The level of evidence is very low and further research is required.

Keywords

nursing documentation hospitals quality improvement systematic review

Introduction

Clinical documentation is the process of creating a written or electronic record that describes a patient's history and the care given to a patient (Blair & Smith, 2012; Wilbanks et al., 2016). It serves as an important communication tool for the exchange of information between healthcare providers and it is stored in a printed or electronic medical record (Duclos-Miller, 2016; Mishra et al., 2009). According to Wilbanks et al. (2016) good quality documentation has been defined as documentation that is correct and comprehensive, uses clear terminology, is legible and readable, timely, concise and plausible.

Poor nursing documentation in the acute care setting may have negative impacts on patient outcomes and may also result in litigation (Duclos-Miller, 2016). Therefore it is important to determine if there are any strategies that will provide meaningful improvements in the quality of nursing documentation in the acute care setting.

At the time of writing there were four systematic reviews related to nursing documentation. Three (Johnson et al., 2018; Müller-Staub et al., 2006; Saranto et al., 2014) examined the impacts of standardized nursing languages (SNL) on the quality of nursing documentation. They were narrative reviews, and include studies that were not necessarily confined to the acute sector. They demonstrated that SNL will improve the quality of nursing documentation, assist in the fulfilment of the legal requirements of documentation and facilitate the use of an electronic health record (EHR). One systematic review (McCarthy et al., 2019) examined the effects of electronic nursing documentation and found that utilizing an END system could improve the quality of nursing documentation, decrease documentation errors and increase compliance with nursing documentation guidelines.

These systematic reviews were narrative in structure and no attempt has been made to determine if the improvement in each of the studies reviewed is a clinically meaningful improvement. The aim of this systematic review is to qualitatively and quantitatively analyze the literature in an attempt to determine which strategies to improve compliance with clinical nursing documentation guidelines, and improve the quality of nursing documentation, have been most effective in the acute setting.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) guidelines, where possible.(Page et al., 2021a, b)

Search Strategy

A keyword search for relevant studies was conducted in CINAHL and Medline in May 2019 and again October 2020, due to the time that had elapsed. The only limitations were for articles in peer reviewed journals that were written in English. An analysis of the text words contained in the titles, abstracts and index terms found in relevant articles was used to inform the search strategy. The reference lists of articles selected for inclusion were hand searched for additional articles. The full search strategy for CINAHL is found in Appendix 1.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Studies were included if they were quantitative research investigating strategies to improve clinical nursing documentation in acute hospitals. Where possible, the quantitative components of mixed method studies were also included. The nursing documentation components of studies that also involved allied health or medical documentation were included where possible. Studies were not excluded by intervention, we attempted to include as many studies as possible (See Table 1).

Table 1.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria.

	Included	Excluded
Population	Clinical nursing documentation in acute hospitals – care plans, flow sheets, nursing assessment, observations, diagnosis, interventions, outcomes, discharge summaries, patient education, adverse drug reactions	Allied health, doctors, students, complimentary health, chaplains, dentists, primary care, residential care, palliative care, community care, clinical coding, trauma registers, incident reports, medication charts
Intervention	Strategies to improve clinical nursing documentation e.g. education, EHR, SNL, clinical governance, process improvement, audit and feedback, form modification	Nil
Outcome	Quantifiable changes in the quality of clinical nursing documentation	Changes in the quality of nursing documentation that are not quantifiable
Study type	Quantitative studies – Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT), and quasi experimental studies e.g. before and after, cross section, Plan Do Study Act (PDSA) time series analysis, randomized trials; that are published in English in a peer reviewed journal; the quantitative components of mixed method studies.	Qualitative studies, studies in a language other than English, studies not published in a peer reviewed journal.

Study selection

Abstract and title screening from the database results lists was initially performed by the principal reviewer and citations were downloaded into EndNote X9 if they appeared relevant. The abstracts in EndNote were then screened independently by both reviewers and conflicts were resolved by discussion. Full text screening was undertaken by the principal reviewer.

Data extraction

A Summary of Data (SOD) excel spreadsheet was prepared by the principal reviewer. For each study that met the selection criteria the following data were extracted - author, year of publication, country of origin, study title, aims, study design, setting, sample size, method of randomization, interventions used, instruments used to collect data, statistical analyzes performed, outcome measures, results and conclusions.

Quality appraisal

Studies included in this systematic review were quasi-experimental studies and were appraised for risk of bias by the principal reviewer using the JBI critical appraisal for quasi-experimental studies (Tufanaru et al., 2017). The JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Randomized Controlled Trials (Tufanaru et al., 2017) was used for the only RCT included in the review. For before and after studies, the pre intervention group was not considered to be a control group. The statistical analyzes performed in the studies were evaluated for appropriateness with reference to the Flow chart for hypothesis tests, categorical and numerical data, found on the back inside cover of Medical Statistics at a Glance by Petrie and Sabin (2020)

Rating the certainty of the evidence was undertaken using the principles of GRADE when a meta-analysis has not been performed (Murad et al., 2017)

Analysis

The analysis was performed by the principal reviewer. Where possible each study was quantitatively analyzed such that the data collected in each study were used to calculate a pre intervention and a post intervention percentage compliance score i.e. (mean score/possible total score) × (100/1). A percentage change in compliance for each study was calculated by subtracting the pre intervention score from the post intervention score. The change in compliance score and the post intervention compliance score were both added to the SOD excel and used as a basis for comparison between the studies.

For each study, a meaningful compliance rate was defined as a post intervention compliance rate ≥ 70%, using the definition of compliance as defined within the study . This was chosen as it seems a satisfactory return on investment for the time, effort and resources that are often expended to improve nursing compliance with clinical documentation.

Each study was analyzed thematically in terms of the intervention strategies used. The themes were education alone, audit and feedback, EHR versus paper health record, SNL, EHR modifications, new forms, guidelines, and system changes. Each study was coded according to all of the intervention strategies that were applied, and the codes were recorded on the SOD spreadsheet. See Table 2 for a definition of each of the themes.

Table 2.

Definition of the Themes.

Education alone	Training sessions, handouts, instructional emails, quizzes, prompt cards, meetings, coaching, awareness raising, elearning, simulation, workshops, champions, orientation
Audit and feedback	Paper or EHR documentation audits with general feedback or personal feedback to nurses
EHR vs paper record	Electronic health records, eDisharge applications, computer generated care plans, computerized patient assessment - compared to equivalent paper based records.
SNL	Standardized nursing languages – North American Nursing Diagnosis Association (NANDA) nursing diagnoses; Nursing Interventions Classification (NIC); Nursing Outcomes Classification (NOC); VIPS (an acronym for well-being, integrity, prevention and safety); Problem Etiology Signs/Symptoms (PES)
EHR modifications	Enhancements in the EHR, triggers, prompts, automatic suggestions, reconfigurations to reduce the number of clicks, shortcuts, forced functions, hard stops, passive visual cues, mandatory fields, ability to import notes, automatic defaults
New forms	New or modified paper forms and new or modified EHR templates
Guidelines	Documentation guidelines, standard operating procedures, policies, protocols, standards
System changes	Provision of equipment, cohorting of patients, ward clerks checking notes for completion, a multidisciplinary approach, avoiding duplication of nursing notes, measurement Monday, mandating compliance

This review is as a narrative synthesis with a quantitative component. For each of the thematic strategies, the post intervention compliance scores were compared to determine if any of the strategies were effective in achieving a meaningful improvement in the quality of nursing documentation. Studies that achieved large improvements in compliance from a very low initial compliance base may not have achieved a final compliance rate of ≥ 70%, therefore good performances may have been missed in this analysis. To compensate for this, studies that achieved an improvement of ≥ 50% were also identified and analyzed in terms of strategies employed.

Ethics approval was sought and was not required.

Results

An initial search was performed in May 2019. Due to the time that had elapsed, a follow up search was performed in October 2020. See Figure 1 PRISMA Diagram below

Figure 1.

PRISMA diagram for searches conducted in 2019 and again in 2020 due to the time that had elapsed

Studies were excluded after full text review if they did not meet the inclusion criteria for this study (see Table 1).

No studies were excluded after critical appraisal, we attempted to include as many studies as possible.

Seventy six full text articles were reviewed for this study. See Appendix 2 for The Summary of Data table. You can download the data in the SOD spreadsheet from here https://osf.io/8r49s/files/

Fifty seven of the studies were before and after studies, with the remainder being cross sectional studies (six), Plan Do Study Act studies (four), non-randomized controlled studies (four), time course analyzes (two), randomized trials (two) and one randomized controlled trial. Sixty six studies were conducted in western countries including the USA, Canada, Europe, the UK and Australia. The remainder were conducted in Jordan, Kenya, Brazil, Iran and Singapore. Publishing dates for the studies ranged from 1991 to 2020, all but seven of the studies were conducted in the last 20 years.

Nine of the studies included in this review used education as their only strategy to improve nursing compliance with clinical documentation (Cone et al., 1996; Finn, 1997; Griffiths et al., 2007; Jackson, 2010; Lieow et al., 2019; Linch et al., 2017; Müller-Staub et al., 2008; Mykkänen et al., 2012; Phillips et al., 2019). Of these studies, four had a post-intervention compliance rate ≥ 70% (Jackson, 2010; Lieow et al., 2019; Müller-Staub et al., 2008; Mykkänen et al., 2012).

Twenty two studies had audit and feedback as one of the strategies used to improve compliance with nursing documentation (Azzolini et al., 2019; Bernick & Richards, 1994; Cline, 2016; Elliott, 2018; Ellis et al., 2007; Esper & Walker, 2015; Gerdtz et al., 2013; Gloger et al., 2020; Gordon et al., 2008; Goulding et al., 2015; Hayter & Schaper, 2015; Hom et al., 2019; Jacobson et al., 2016; Kamath et al., 2011; Okoyo Nyakiba et al., 2014; O’Connor et al., 2014; Porter, 1990; Stocki et al., 2018; Tejedor et al., 2013; Trad et al., 2019; Unaka et al., 2017; Wissman et al., 2020). Sixteen of these studies had a final compliance rate ≥ 70%. However if the feedback is personal, the number of studies with a compliance rate ≥ 70% improves to ten out of 11 studies (Bernick & Richards, 1994; Cline, 2016; Elliott, 2018; Esper & Walker, 2015; Gloger et al., 2020; Hayter & Schaper, 2015; Jacobson et al., 2016; Kamath et al., 2011; O’Connor et al., 2014; Unaka et al., 2017; Wissman et al., 2020). Download Table 3 Audit and personal feedback from here https://osf.io/8r49s/files/

When audit and feedback are combined with the use of a pre-existing EHR the results are also encouraging (Cline, 2016; Elliott, 2018; Esper & Walker, 2015; Gerdtz et al., 2013; Gloger et al., 2020; Hayter & Schaper, 2015; Hom et al., 2019; Jacobson et al., 2016; Kamath et al., 2011; Tejedor et al., 2013; Unaka et al., 2017). Ten of the 11 studies had a final compliance rate ≥ 70%.

Thirteen studies compared EHR with paper records as one of the strategies for increasing nursing documentation compliance (Akhu-Zaheya et al., 2018; Ammenwerth et al., 2001; Dahlstrom et al., 2011; Gunningberg et al., 2008; Gunningberg et al., 2009; Higuchi et al., 1999; Hübner et al., 2015; Larrabee et al., 2001; Mansfield et al., 2001; Rabelo-Silva et al., 2017; Rykkje, 2009; Thoroddsen et al., 2011; Tubaishat et al., 2015). Six of these studies demonstrated a final compliance rate ≥ 70% when an EHR was utilized. It should be noted that Larrabee et al. (2001) had a high compliance rate, however the improvement was 0.2%. Two studies, (Akhu-Zaheya et al., 2018; Rykkje, 2009) demonstrated a decline in compliance when comparing EHR to paper based records.

Ten studies involved the use of SNL as one of the strategies to improve nursing documentation (Björvell et al., 2002; Darmer et al., 2006; Larrabee et al., 2001; Melo et al., 2019; Müller-Staub et al., 2007; Nøst et al., 2017; Rabelo-Silva et al., 2017; Rykkje, 2009; Thoroddsen et al., 2011; Thoroddsen & Ehnfors, 2007). Four of these studies had a final compliance rate ≥ 70% (Larrabee et al., 2001; Müller-Staub et al., 2007; Thoroddsen et al., 2011; Thoroddsen & Ehnfors, 2007). It should be noted that although Larrabee et al. (2001) had a final compliance rate of 84.2%, the improvement was 0.2%.

Ten studies utilized EHR modifications as one of the strategies to improve nursing documentation (Bruylands et al., 2013; Chineke et al., 2020; Esper & Walker, 2015; Gerdtz et al., 2013; Hom et al., 2019; Jacobson et al., 2016; Kamath et al., 2011; Nielsen et al., 2014; Sandau et al., 2015; Tejedor et al., 2013). Seven of these studies had a final compliance rate ≥ 70% (Chineke et al., 2020; Esper & Walker, 2015; Hom et al., 2019; Jacobson et al., 2016; Kamath et al., 2011; Nielsen et al., 2014; Tejedor et al., 2013). Prompts were used in four of the studies (Chineke et al., 2020; Hom et al., 2019; Kamath et al., 2011; Sandau et al., 2015), and except for Sandau et al. (2015) they all had a final compliance of ≥ 80%.

Thirty two studies used new forms as one of their strategies for improving nursing documentation (Aparanji et al., 2018; Björvell et al., 2002; Bono, 1992; Cahill et al., 2011; Chineke et al., 2020; Christie, 1993; Dahlstrom et al., 2011; de Rond et al., 2000; Dehghan et al., 2015; Elliott et al., 2017; Ellis et al., 2007; Enright et al., 2015; Florin et al., 2005; Förberg et al., 2012; Gerdtz et al., 2013; Gordon et al., 2008; Hayter & Schaper, 2015; Higuchi et al., 1999; Hospodar, 2007; Hübner et al., 2015; Kamath et al., 2011; Karp et al., 2019; Khresheh & Barclay, 2008; Mansfield et al., 2001; Mitchell et al., 2010; Nomura et al., 2018; Nøst et al., 2017; O’Connor et al., 2014; Stewart et al., 2009; Stocki et al., 2018; Thoroddsen & Ehnfors, 2007; Unaka et al., 2017). Seventeen of the 32 studies had a final compliance rate ≥ 70%.

Twelve studies included changes to guidelines, procedures or policies as one of the strategies to improve nursing documentation (Considine et al., 2006; Elliott, 2018; Flores et al., 2020; Gordon et al., 2008; Gunningberg et al., 2008; Habich et al., 2012; Jacobson et al., 2016; Margonary et al., 2017; Mitchell et al., 2010; Nomura et al., 2018; Trad et al., 2019; Turner & Stephenson, 2015). Five of these studies achieved a final compliance rate ≥ 70% (Elliott, 2018; Flores et al., 2020; Gordon et al., 2008; Jacobson et al., 2016; Nomura et al., 2018). It should be noted that the results for Elliott (2018) must be used with caution as some negative results may have left out in the final calculation of compliance rates.

Ten studies included administrative or system changes as one of the strategies to improve nursing documentation (Ammenwerth et al., 2001; Dehghan et al., 2015; Enright et al., 2015; Gerdtz et al., 2013; Kamath et al., 2011; Mansfield et al., 2001; Meyer et al., 2019; Okoyo Nyakiba et al., 2014; Stewart et al., 2009; Trad et al., 2019). All of the system changes improved nursing documentation, six of them had a final compliance rate ≥70% (Ammenwerth et al., 2001; Enright et al., 2015; Kamath et al., 2011; Mansfield et al., 2001; Meyer et al., 2019; Stewart et al., 2009).

Thirty six studies achieved a meaningful compliance rate i.e. a post intervention compliance score ≥ 70%. Download Table 4 Compliance ≥ 70% from here https://osf.io/8r49s/files/

Seven of the studies had an improvement rate of ≥ 50% (Chineke et al., 2020; Gordon et al., 2008; Hayter & Schaper, 2015; Kamath et al., 2011; Müller-Staub et al., 2007; Porter, 1990; Unaka et al., 2017). The post intervention compliance rate was ≥ 80% for all of them, except Hayter and Schaper (2015), where the final compliance rate was 72%.

There are serious concerns regarding the certainty of the evidence, and the evidence has been graded as very low due to methodological limitations and issues with imprecision, inconsistency and publication bias (See Table 5)

Table 5.

Certainty of Evidence.

GRADE domain	Judgement	Concerns about certainty domains
Methodological limitations of the studies	There was one RCT, the remainder were quasi experimental. There was a large variations in sample sizes (n = 3 to n = 89,521). p values were not always calculated. Instruments to measure the outcomes were not always validated or tested for reliability. Only 3 of the studies had multiple pre-intervention measures.	Very serious
Indirectness	The settings, populations, interventions, outcomes and comparators all provide direct evidence to the question.	Not serious
Imprecision	The total number of notes audited was in the tens of thousands, however only two studies reported Confidence Intervals (CI), therefore it is not possible to adequately determine imprecision.	Serious
Inconsistency	The direction and magnitude of effect varied across the studies from small decreases in compliance to large improvements in compliance.	Serious
Publication bias	There was a comprehensive search and positive and negative results were published, however some relevant studies may have been missed due to the reviewers being unable to access the full text.	Serious

Discussion

Of the nine studies that used education alone as the strategy to improve nursing documentation, four resulted in a meaningful compliance rate. It was not possible to determine if the form of the education that was applied, e.g. lectures, simulation, case discussion or demonstrations, had any influence on the final outcome of documentation compliance. The number of studies was too small and the descriptions of the education supplied was not always adequate enough to draw any conclusions.

In terms of the hours devoted to education, one study, Müller-Staub et al. (2008), involved 22.5 h of education for a final compliance rate of 94.5%. However another study, Linch et al. (2017) had 30 h of instruction and discussion for a final compliance rate of 45%, therefore it is difficult to draw any conclusions as to whether the amount of time spent on education has any effect on documentation compliance. Bearing in mind the small number of studies that utilized education alone, it appears education alone will improve compliance, however it may not improve compliance to a meaningful extent.

When documentation auditing with personal or individual feedback was one of the strategies utilized, ten out of the 11 studies achieved a compliance rate of 70% or more (see Table 3 https://osf.io/8r49s/files/). This suggests that auditing and personal

feedback, combined with other context specific strategies such as education, new forms, new templates or EHR modifications, may be a reliable strategy for improving compliance. However the results for Elliott (2018) should be used with caution as some negative results may have been left out in the final calculation of compliance rates. When an EHR was used to conduct the audits, the improvement in compliance rate seems to be reliably high; ten out of the 11 studies that used an EHR to conduct the audits achieved a compliance rate of ≥ 70%. This may be due to the fact that the time consuming audit process is made more efficient by using an EHR for data extraction (Lieow et al., 2019).

Thirteen studies utilized an EHR as one of the strategies to improve nursing documentation, six of these achieved a meaningful compliance rate, however for one of these, Larrabee et al. (2001), the improvement was 0.2% It appears from these studies that introducing an EHR may not guarantee a meaningful improvement in nursing documentation, and it may even be counterproductive as shown by the studies Rykkje (2009) and Akhu-Zaheya et al. (2018). In nearly all of the studies the EHR system was not described or named therefore it was not possible to determine if the nature of the EHR had any effect on the results.

Standardized Nursing Language was used in ten studies, four of them achieved a compliance rate of ≥ 70%. The use of NANDA and NIC appears to be more effective than PES or VIPS for improving nursing documentation compliance. Four out of the six studies that used NANDA and NIC had a final compliance rate ≥ 80% (Larrabee et al., 2001; Müller-Staub et al., 2007; Thoroddsen et al., 2011; Thoroddsen & Ehnfors, 2007); however it should be remembered that Larrabee et al. (2001) had 0.2% improvement. Standardized Nursing Language will improve nursing documentation, however it may not improve to a meaningful extent.

Of the 10 studies that used EHR modification, seven achieved a meaningful compliance rate. For the purposes of this systematic review, new or reconfigured EHR templates, are included in the next section - New Forms. Many different EHR modifications were used across the various studies (see Table 2), and there are indications that prompts in the EHR may be useful in improving compliance, however there is no single modification that ensures meaningful compliance.

For the purposes of this systematic review new forms included new or modified paper forms and new or modified EHR templates. Thirty two of the studies included new forms as one of the strategies to improve nursing documentation, seventeen of these studies improved nursing documentation to a meaningful degree.

Of the 12 studies that used the creation of new guidelines or changes to existing guidelines as a strategy, five achieved a meaningful compliance rate. It appears that guidelines will improve nursing documentation but not always to a meaningful degree.

Ten studies utilized administrative or system changes as one of the strategies to improve compliance. The studies were too heterogeneous for any single strategy to be proven effective at providing a meaningful improvement. All of the studies that used system changes showed improved nursing documentation, six out of the ten studies demonstrated improvement to a meaningful degree.

In the future, issues with clinical nursing documentation may be dealt with by technological means, for example the use of digital scribes. Digital scribes will employ advances in speech recognition, natural language processing, artificial intelligence, machine learning and clinical decision support technologies, to translate clinical encounters into meaningful and accurate records (Coiera et al., 2018). However speech recognition systems and artificial intelligence will need to be vastly improved before the benefits outweigh the risks of using a digital scribe. Meanwhile strategies to improve nursing documentation remains a relevant topic for research.

Limitations of the Study

Full text screening and the quantitative and thematic analyzes were performed by one reviewer, this may have caused some bias in the results. There was no funding for this systematic review, therefore full text access to all of the articles that appeared in the search results was not possible, this may have resulted in some relevant research not being included in the final analysis. The research articles that were analyzed in this project were very heterogeneous in terms of design, statistical analyzes and strategies employed, meaning that traditional systematic review meta-analysis was not possible, and the percentage analysis that was undertaken was rudimentary at best. Only data that could be converted to percentages were included, therefore some data were missed in the analysis.

The studies usually combined many strategies, making it difficult to tease out the effects of any single strategy. The time that elapsed between the intervention and the post intervention audits varied between the studies and was not analyzed in this systematic review. This may have disadvantaged the studies that used a longer time interval to determine if the improvements in documentation were sustained over time. The level of certainty of the evidence is very low, (see Table 5). These limitations could be overcome by a follow up study, focusing on audit and personal feedback and utilizing more rigorous statistical analyzes.

Implications for Practice

Documentation audits with personal feedback should be considered as one of the strategies to be utilized when attempts are made to improve the quality of nursing documentation.

Conclusion

Notwithstanding the limitations of this study, it may be that documentation audit with personal feedback, when combined with other context specific strategies, is a reliable method for gaining meaningful improvements in nursing clinical documentation. Utilizing an EHR to perform the audits may be beneficial to the process, by making the audit process more efficient. The certainty in the evidence is very low, therefore using audit and personal feedback as a strategy to improve clinical nursing documentation is an area that would benefit from more research.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Jeanette Bunting

Appendix 1. Search strategy in CINAHL October 2020.

Appendix 2. Summary of data.

References

Akhu-Zaheya

Al-Maaitah

Bany Hani

(2018). Quality of nursing documentation: Paper-based health records versus electronic-based health records. Journal of Clinical Nursing (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.), 27(3–4), e578–e589. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14097

Ammenwerth

Eichstädter

Haux

Pohl

Rebel

Ziegler

(2001). A randomized evaluation of a computer-based nursing documentation system. Methods of Information in Medicine, 40(2), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1634465

Aparanji

Kulkarni

Metzke

Schmudde

White

Jaeger

(2018). Quality improvement of delirium status communication and documentation for intensive care unit patients during daily multidisciplinary rounds. BMJ Open Quality, 7(2), e000239–e000239. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2017-000239

Azzolini

Furia

Cambieri

Ricciardi

Volpe

Poscia

(2019). Quality improvement of medical records through internal auditing: A comparative analysis. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene, 60(3), E250–E255. https://doi.org/10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2019.60.3.1203

Bernick

Richards

(1994). Nursing documentation: A program to promote and sustain improvement. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 25(5), 203–208. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,athens&db=rzh&AN=107397873&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Björvell

Wredling

Thorell-Ekstrand

(2002). Long-term increase in quality of nursing documentation: Effects of a comprehensive intervention. Scandinavian Journal Of Caring Sciences, 16(1), 34–42. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,athens&db=cmedm&AN=11985747&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Blair

Smith

(2012). Nursing documentation: Frameworks and barriers. Contemporary Nurse: A Journal for the Australian Nursing Profession, 41(2), 160–168. https://doi.org/10.5172/conu.2012.41.2.160

Bono

B. J.

(1992). Assessment and documentation of the breastfeeding couple by health care professionals. Journal of Human Lactation, 8(1), 17–22. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,athens&db=rzh&AN=107486051&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Bruylands

Paans

Hediger

Müller-Staub

(2013). Effects on the quality of the nursing care process through an educational program and the use of electronic nursing documentation. International Journal of Nursing Knowledge, 24(3), 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2047-3095.2013.01248.x

10.

Cahill

Jones

Herkes

Cook

Stirling

Halbert

Gattas

D. J.

(2011). Introduction of a new observation chart and education programme is associated with higher rates of vital-sign ascertainment in hospital wards. Bmj Quality & Safety, 20(9), 791–796. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs.2010.045096

11.

Chineke

Adams Curry

Bell

Flood

Mishra

Power

Bernal-Mizrachi

(2020). Improving documentation of pain and constipation management within the cancer center of a large urban academic hospital. JCO Oncol Pract, 16(3), e251–e256. https://doi.org/10.1200/jop.19.00332

12.

Christie

(1993). Does the use of an assessment tool in the accident and emergency department improve the quality of care? Journal Of Advanced Nursing, 18(11), 1758–1771. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,athens&db=cmedm&AN=8288822&site=ehost-live&scope=site

13.

Cline

M. A.

(2016). Increasing RN accountability in professional practice: Development of a pain reassessment documentation scorecard. The Journal Of Nursing Administration, 46(3), 128–131. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNA.0000000000000311

14.

Coiera

Kocaballi

Halamka

Laranjo

(2018). The digital scribe. npj Digital Medicine, 1(1), 58. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-018-0066-9

15.

Cone

K. J.

Anderson

M. A.

Johnson

J. A.

(1996). The effect of in-service education on emergency nurses’ documentation of physical assessment. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 22(5), 398–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0099-1767(96)80159-0

16.

Considine

Potter

Jenkins

(2006). Can written nursing practice standards improve documentation of initial assessment of ED patients? Australasian Emergency Nursing Journal, 9(1), 11–18. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,athens&db=rzh&AN=106352052 &site=ehost-live&scope=site

17.

Dahlstrom

Best

Baker

Doeing

Davis

Doty

Arora

V. M.

(2011). Improving identification and documentation of pressure ulcers at an urban academic hospital. Joint Commission Journal on Quality & Patient Safety, 37(3), 123–130. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,athens&db=rzh&AN=104846681&site=ehost-live&scope=site

18.

Darmer

M. R.

Ankersen

Nielsen

B. G.

Landberger

Lippert

Egerod

(2006). Nursing documentation audit--the effect of a VIPS implementation programme in Denmark. Journal Of Clinical Nursing, 15(5), 525–534. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,athens&db=cmedm&AN=16629961&site =ehost-live&scope=site

19.

de Rond

M. E.

de Wit

van Dam

F. S.

Muller

M. J.

(2000). A pain monitoring program for nurses: Effects on communication, assessment and documentation of patients’ pain. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 20(6), 424–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0885-3924(00)00209-8

20.

Dehghan

Sheikhrabori

(2015). The quality of clinical documentation of patients admitted to an Iranian teaching hospital: A two-year impact of clinical governance. Asian Journal of Nursing Education and Research, 5(2), 159. https://doi.org/10.5958/2349-2996.2015.00033.6

21.

Duclos-Miller

P. A.

(2016). Improving nursing documentation and reducing risk. HCPro, a division of BLR.

22.

Elliott

Allen

McKinley

Perry

Duffield

Fry

Roche

(2017). User compliance with documenting on a track and trigger-based observation and response chart: A two-phase multi-site audit study. Journal Of Advanced Nursing, 73(12), 2892–2902. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13302

23.

Elliott

(2018). Standardizing documentation: A place for everything. MEDSURG Nursing, 27(1), 32–37. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,athens&db=rzh&AN=128049904&site=ehost-live&scope=site

24.

Ellis

J. A.

McCleary

Blouin

Dube

Rowley

MacNeil

Cooke

(2007). Implementing best practice pain management in a pediatric hospital. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 12(4), 264–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6155.2007.00121.x

25.

Enright

MacMillan

Lymburner

Sodoski

Gollee

Carvalho

Almeida

(2015). Improving documentation of oral chemotherapy at a community cancer center. Journal Of Oncology Practice, 11(3), 213–215. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2014.003111

26.

Esper

Walker

(2015). Improving documentation of quality measures in the electronic health record. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 27(6), 308–312. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/2327-6924.12169

27.

Finn

(1997). Clinical. Nurses’ documentation of infection control precautions: 2. British Journal of Nursing, 6(12), 678–684. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,athens&db=rzh&AN=107349953 &site=ehost-live&scope=site

28.

Flores

C. J.

Lakkundi

McIntosh

Freeman

Thomson

Saxon

Ross

(2020). Embedding best transfusion practice and blood management in neonatal intensive care. BMJ Open Quality, 9(1), e000694. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2019-000694

29.

Florin

Ehrenberg

Ehnfors

(2005). Quality of nursing diagnoses: Evaluation of an educational intervention. International Journal of Nursing Terminologies & Classifications, 16(2), 33–43. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,athens& db=rzh&AN=106528371&site=ehost-live&scope=site

30.

Förberg

Johansson

Ygge

B.-M.

Wallin

Ehrenberg

(2012). Accuracy in documentation of peripheral venous catheters in paediatric care: An intervention study in electronic patient records. Journal Of Clinical Nursing, 21(9–10), 1339–1344. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03949.x

31.

Gerdtz

M. F.

Waite

Vassiliou

Garbutt

Prematunga

Virtue

(2013). Evaluation of a multifaceted intervention on documentation of vital signs at triage: A before-and-after study. Emergency Medicine Australasia: EMA, 25(6), 580–587. https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.12153

32.

Gloger

A. N.

Nakonezny

P. A.

Phelan

H. A.

(2020). Use of tailored feedback improves accuracy of delirium documentation in the burn ICU: Results of a performance improvement initiative. Journal of Burn Care & Research: Official Publication of the American Burn Association, 41(2), 299–305. https://doi.org/10.1093/jbcr/irz153

33.

Gordon

D. B.

Rees

S. M.

McCausland

M. P.

Pellino

T. A.

Sanford-Ring

Smith-Helmenstine

Danis

D. M.

(2008). Improving reassessment and documentation of pain management. Joint Commission Journal on Quality & Patient Safety, 34(9), 509–517. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,athens&db=rzh&AN =105550853&site=ehost-live&scope=site

34.

Goulding

Parke

Maharaj

Loveridge

McLoone

Hadfield

Sandall

(2015). Improving critical care discharge summaries: A collaborative quality improvement project using PDSA. BMJ Quality Improvement Reports, 4(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjquality.u203938.w3268

35.

Griffiths

Debbage

Smith

(2007). A comprehensive audit of nursing record keeping practice. British Journal Of Nursing (Mark Allen Publishing), 16(21), 1324–1327. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,athens&db=cmedm&AN=18073669&site=ehost-live&scope=site

36.

Gunningberg

Dahm

M. F.

Ehrenberg

(2008). Accuracy in the recording of pressure ulcers and prevention after implementing an electronic health record in hospital care. Quality & Safety in Health Care, 17(4), 281–285. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2007.023341

37.

Gunningberg

Fogelberg-Dahm

Ehrenberg

(2009). Improved quality and comprehensiveness in nursing documentation of pressure ulcers after implementing an electronic health record in hospital care. Journal of Clinical Nursing (Wiley-Blackwell), 18(11), 1557–1564. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2008.02647.x

38.

Habich

Wilson

Thielk

Melles

G. L.

Crumlett

H. S.

Masterton

McGuire

(2012). Evaluating the effectiveness of pediatric pain management guidelines. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 27(4), 336–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2011.06.002

39.

Hayter

K. L.

Schaper

A. M.

(2015). CONTROLLING PAIN. Improving pain documentation with peer chart review. Nursing, 45(7), 58–63. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NURSE.0000463673.52336.80

40.

Higuchi

K. A.

Dulberg

Duff

(1999). Factors associated with nursing diagnosis utilization in Canada. Nursing Diagnosis: ND: The Official Journal Of The North American Nursing Diagnosis Association, 10(4), 137–147. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,athens&db=cmedm&AN=10786554&site=ehost-live&scope=site

41.

Hom

L. A.

Chan Salcedo

Revenis

Martin

G. R.

(2019). Quality improvement interventions to improve critical congenital heart disease screening. Pediatric quality & safety, 4(5), e221–e221. https://doi.org/10.1097/pq9.0000000000000221

42.

Hospodar

(2007). Sticking together! A creative approach to documenting insulin double checks. Rehabilitation Nursing: The Official Journal Of The Association Of Rehabilitation Nurses, 32(1), 6–8. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,athens&db=cmedm&AN=17225368&site=ehost-live&scope=site

43.

Hübner

Schulte

Sellemann

Quade

Rottmann

Fenske

Rienhoff

(2015). Evaluating a proof-of-concept approach of the German health telematics infrastructure in the context of Discharge management (Vol. 216). Netherlands: IOS Press. https://ebooks.iospress.nl/publication/40257.

44.

Jackson

S. E.

(2010). The efficacy of an educational intervention on documentation of pain management for the elderly patient with a hip fracture in the emergency department. JEN: Journal of Emergency Nursing, 36(1), 10–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen.2008.08.022

45.

Jacobson

T. M.

Thompson

S. L.

Halvorson

A. M.

Zeitler

(2016). Enhancing documentation of pressure ulcer prevention interventions. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 31(3), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000175

46.

Johnson

Edward

K.-L.

Giandinoto

J.-A.

(2018). A systematic literature review of accuracy in nursing care plans and using standardised nursing language. Collegian, 25(3), 355–361. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colegn.2017.09.006

47.

Kamath

B. D.

Donovan

E. F.

Christopher

Brodbeck

Slone

Marcotte

M. P.

(2011). Using improvement science to increase accuracy and reliability of gestational Age documentation. American Journal of Perinatology, 28(8), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1285096

48.

Karp

E. L.

Freeman

Simpson

K. N.

Simpson

A. N.

(2019). Changes in efficiency and quality of nursing electronic health record documentation after implementation of an admission patient history essential data Set. CIN: Computers, Informatics. Nursing, 37(5), 260–265. https://doi.org/10.1097/CIN.0000000000000516

49.

Khresheh

Barclay

(2008). Implementation of a new birth record in three hospitals in Jordan: A study of health system improvement. Health Policy And Planning, 23(1), 76–82. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,athens&db=cmedm&AN=17965443&site=ehost-live&scope=site

50.

Larrabee

J. H.

Boldreghini

Elder-Sorrells

Turner

Z. M.

Wender

R. G.

Hart

J. M.

Lenzi

P. S.

(2001). Evaluation of documentation before and after implementation of a nursing information system in an acute care hospital. Computers in Nursing, 19(2), 56–68. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,athens&db=rzh&AN=107022870&site=ehost-live&scope=site

51.

Lieow

J. L. M.

Chen

F. S. M.

Song

Tang

P. S.

Kowitlawakul

Mukhopadhyay

(2019). Effectiveness of an advanced practice nurse-led delirium education and training programme. International Nursing Review, 66(4), 506–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.12519

52.

Linch

Lima

A. A. A.

Souza

E. N.

Nauderer

T. M.

Paz

A. A.

da Costa

(2017). An educational intervention impact on the quality of nursing records. Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem, 25, e2938. https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.1986.2938

53.

Mansfield

J. A.

Dodds

K. L.

Mallory

T. H.

Lombardi

A. V.

Adams

J. B.

(2001). Linking the orthopaedic office-hospital continuum: Results before and after implementation of an automated patient health history project. Orthopedic Nursing, 20(2), 51–60. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,athens&db=cmedm&AN=12024635&site=ehost-live&scope=site

54.

Margonary

Hannan

M. S.

Schlenk

E. A.

(2017). Quality improvement initiative on pain knowledge, assessment, and documentation skills of pediatric nurses. Pediatric Nursing, 43(2), 65–70. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,athens&db=cmedm&AN=29394479&site=ehost-live&scope=site

55.

McCarthy

Fitzgerald

O’Shea

Condon

Savage

Hartnett-Collins

Bergin

(2019). Electronic nursing documentation interventions to promote or improve patient safety and quality care: A systematic review. Journal of Nursing Management (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.), 27(3), 491–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12727

56.

Melo

L. S. d.

Figueiredo

L. d. S.

Pereira

J. d. M. V.

Flores

P. V. P.

Cavalcanti

A. C. D.

(2019). Effect of an educational program on the quality of nursing process recording. Acta Paulista de Enfermagem, 32(3), 246–253. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0194201900034

57.

Meyer

L. K.

Nanassy

A. D.

Lavella

Arthur

L. G.

Grewal

(2019). Cohorting trauma patients in a medical/surgical unit at a level I pediatric trauma center to enhance interdisciplinary collaboration and documentation. Journal Of Trauma Nursing: The Official Journal Of The Society Of Trauma Nurses, 26(1), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1097/JTN.0000000000000418

58.

Mishra

A. K.

Bhattarai

Bhurtel

Bista

N. R.

Shrestha

Thakali

Pathak

S. R.

(2009). Need for improvement of medical records. JNMA; Journal of the Nepal Medical Association, 48(174), 103–106. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,athens&db=cmedm&AN=20387347&site=ehost-live&scope=site

59.

Mitchell

I. A.

McKay

Van Leuvan

Berry

McCutcheon

Avard

Lamberth,

(2010). A prospective controlled trial of the effect of a multi-faceted intervention on early recognition and intervention in deteriorating hospital patients. Resuscitation, 81(6), 658–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.03.001

60.

Müller-Staub

Lavin

M. A.

Needham

van Achterberg

(2006). Nursing diagnoses, interventions and outcomes - application and impact on nursing practice: Systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 56(5), 514–531. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04012.x

61.

Müller-Staub

Needham

Odenbreit

Lavin

M. A.

van Achterberg

(2007). Improved quality of nursing documentation: Results of a nursing diagnoses, interventions, and outcomes implementation study. International Journal of Nursing Terminologies & Classifications, 18(1), 5–17. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,athens&db=rzh&AN=106298993&site=ehost-live&scope=site

62.

Müller-Staub

Needham

Odenbreit

Lavin

M. A.

van Achterberg

(2008). Implementing nursing diagnostics effectively: Cluster randomized trial. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 63(3), 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04700.x

63.

Murad

M. H.

Mustafa

R. A.

Schünemann

H. J.

Sultan

Santesso

(2017). Rating the certainty in evidence in the absence of a single estimate of effect. Evidence-based Medicine, 22(3), 85–87. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2017-110668

64.

Mykkänen

Saranto

Miettinen

(2012). Nursing audit as a method for developing nursing care and ensuring patient safety. NI 2012 : 11th International Congress on Nursing Informatics, June 23-27, 2012, Montreal, Canada. International Congress in Nursing Informatics (11th : 2012 : Montreal, Quebec), 2012, 301–301. Retrieved from

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24199107

65.

Nielsen

Peschel

Burgess

(2014). Essential documentation elements: Quality tool for the emergency department nurse. Advanced Emergency Nursing Journal, 36(2), 199–205. https://doi.org/10.1097/TME.0000000000000020

66.

Nomura

A. T. G.

Pruinelli

da Silva

M. B.

Lucena

A. d. F.

Almeida

M. d. A.

(2018). Quality of electronic nursing records: The impact of educational interventions during a hospital accreditation process. Computers, Informatics, Nursing: CIN, 36(3), 127–132. https://doi.org/10.1097/CIN.0000000000000390

67.

Nøst

T. H.

Frigstad

S. A.

André

(2017). Impact of an education intervention on nursing diagnoses in free-text format in electronic health records: A pretest-posttest study in a medical department at a university hospital. Nordic Journal of Nursing Research, 37(2), 100–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057158516668081

68.

O’Connor

T. L.

Raposo

E. A.

Heller-Wescott

(2014). Improving trauma documentation in the emergency department. Journal Of Trauma Nursing: The Official Journal Of The Society Of Trauma Nurses, 21(5), 238–243. https://doi.org/10.1097/JTN.0000000000000071

69.

Okoyo Nyakiba

McMillan

Kenyatta

(2014). Reporting and documentation of adverse drug reactions by health care professionals at a Kenyan public hospital: A best practice implementation project. JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports, 12(7), 521–533. https://doi.org/10.11124/jbisrir-2014-1362

70.

Page

et al.

(2021a). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

71.

Page

et al

(2021b). PRISMA 2020 Explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n160. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160

72.

Petrie

Sabin

(2020). Medical statistics at glance. Wiley-Blackwell.

73.

Phillips

M. E.

Gilmore

R. A.

Sheffield

M. C.

Phan

S. V.

(2019). Pain assessment documentation after opioid administration at a community teaching hospital. Journal Of Pharmacy Practice, 32(2), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0897190017751207

74.

Porter

(1990). Evaluation of nursing documentation of patient teaching. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 21(3), 134–137. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,athens&db=cmedm&AN=2112175 &site=ehost-live&scope=site

75.

Rabelo-Silva

E. R.

Dantas Cavalcanti

A. C.

Ramos Goulart Caldas

M. C.

Lucena

A. F.

Almeida

M. A.

Linch

G. F.

Müller-Staub

(2017). Advanced nursing process quality: Comparing the international classification for nursing practice (ICNP) with the NANDA-international (NANDA-I) and nursing interventions classification (NIC). Journal of Clinical Nursing, 26(3–4), 379–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13387

76.

Rykkje

(2009). Implementing electronic patient record and VIPS in medical hospital wards: Evaluating change in quantity and quality of nursing documentation by using the audit instrument Cat-ch-Ing. Nordic Journal of Nursing Research & Clinical Studies / Vård i Norden, 29(2), 9–13. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,athens&db=rzh&AN=105395041&site=ehost-live&scope=site

77.

Sandau

K. E.

Sendelbach

Fletcher

Frederickson

Drew

B. J.

Funk

(2015). Computer-assisted interventions to improve QTc documentation in patients receiving QT-prolonging drugs. American Journal Of Critical Care: An Official Publication. American Association Of Critical-Care Nurses, 24(2), e6–e15. https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2015240

78.

Saranto

Kinnunen

U. M.

Kivekäs

Lappalainen

A. M.

Liljamo

Rajalahti

Hyppönen

(2014). Impacts of structuring nursing records: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 28(4), 629–647. https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.12094

79.

Stewart

Bennett

Blokzyl

Bowman

Butcher

Chapman

Wenzel

(2009). ‘Measurement Monday’: One facility’s approach to standardizing skin impairment documentation. Ostomy Wound Management, 55(12), 49–53. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,athens&db=rzh&AN=105277966&site=ehost-live&scope=site

80.

Stocki

McDonnell

Wong

Kotzer

Shackell

Campbell

(2018). Knowledge translation and process improvement interventions increased pain assessment documentation in a large quaternary paediatric post-anaesthesia care unit. BMJ Open Quality, 7(3), e000319–e000319. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2018-000319

81.

Tejedor

S. C.

Garrett

Jacob

J. T.

Meyer

Reyes

M. D.

Robichaux

Steinberg

J. P.

(2013). Electronic documentation of central venous catheter-days: Validation is essential. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 34(9), 900–907. https://doi.org/10.1086/671736

82.

Thoroddsen

Ehnfors

(2007). Putting policy into practice: Pre- and posttests of implementing standardized languages for nursing documentation. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16(10), 1826–1838. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.01836.x

83.

Thoroddsen

Ehnfors

Ehrenberg

(2011). Content and completeness of care plans after implementation of standardized nursing terminologies and computerized records. Computers, Informatics, Nursing: CIN, 29(10), 599–607. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCN.0b013e3182148c31

84.

Trad

Flowers

Caldwell

Sousa

M. S.

Vigh

Lizarondo

Parker

(2019). Nursing assessment and management of incontinence among medical and surgical adult patients in a tertiary hospital: A best practice implementation project. Jbi Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, 17(12), 2578–2590. https://doi.org/10.11124/jbisrir-d-19-00110

85.

Tubaishat

Tawalbeh

L. I.

Al Azzam

AlBashtawy

Batiha

A.-M.

(2015). Electronic versus paper records: Documentation of pressure ulcer data. British Journal of Nursing, 24(6), S30–S37. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,athens&db=rzh&AN=103783030&site=ehost-live&scope=site

86.

Tufanaru

Munn

Aromataris

Campbell

Lisa

(2017). Chapter 3: Systematic reviews of effectiveness. In Aromataris E

M. Z.

(Ed.). Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual.

87.

Turner

Stephenson

(2015). Documentation of chemotherapy administration by nursing staff in inpatient and outpatient oncology/hematology settings: A best practice implementation project. JBI Database Of Systematic Reviews And Implementation Reports, 13(10), 316–334. https://doi.org/10.11124/jbisrir-2015-2157

88.

Unaka

N. I.

Statile

Jerardi

Dahale

Morris

Liberio

Brady

(2017). Improving the readability of pediatric hospital medicine discharge instructions. Journal of Hospital Medicine, 12(7), 551–557. https://doi.org/10.12788/jhm.2770

89.

Wilbanks

B. A.

Geisz-Everson

Boust

R. R.

(2016). The role of documentation quality in anesthesia-related closed claims: A descriptive qualitative study. Computers, informatics, nursing : CIN, 34(9), 406–412. https://doi.org/10.1097/CIN.0000000000000270

90.

Wissman

K. M.

Cassidy

D’Amico

Hoy

Vissari

Baumgartner

(2020). Improving pain reassessment and documentation rates: A quality improvement project in a teaching hospital’s emergency department. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 46(4), 505–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen.2019.12.008

Strategies to Improve Compliance with Clinical Nursing Documentation Guidelines in the Acute Hospital Setting: A Systematic Review and Analysis

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Search Strategy

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Study selection

Data extraction

Quality appraisal

Analysis

Results

Discussion

Limitations of the Study

Implications for Practice

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Appendix 1. Search strategy in CINAHL October 2020.

Appendix 2. Summary of data.

References