IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v21y2012i7-8p975-982.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Examining nursing vital signs documentation workflow: barriers and opportunities in general internal medicine units

Author

Listed:
  • Melanie S Yeung
  • Stephen E Lapinsky
  • John T Granton
  • Diane M Doran
  • Joseph A Cafazzo

Abstract

Aims. To characterise the nursing practices of vital signs collection and documentation in a general internal medicine environment to inform strategies for improving workflow design. Background. Clinical workflow analysis is critical to identify barriers and opportunities in current processes. Analysis can guide the design and development of novel technological solutions to produce greater efficiencies and effectiveness in healthcare delivery. Research surrounding vital signs documentation workflow in general internal medicine environments has received very little attention making it difficult to compare the effectiveness of new technologies. Design. Qualitative ethnographic analyses and quantitative time–motion study were conducted. Methods. Workflows of 24 nurses at three hospitals in five general internal medicine environments were captured, and timeliness of vital signs assessment and documentation was measured. Results. Clinical assessment of vital signs was consistent, but the documentation process was highly variable within groups and between hospitals. Two themes characterised workflow barriers surrounding point‐of‐care documentation. First, a lack of standardised documentation methods for vital signs resulted in higher rates of transcription, increasing not only the likelihood of errors but delays in recording and accessibility of information. Second, despite advancements in electronic documentation systems, the observed system was not conducive to point‐of‐care documentation. Average electronic documentation was significantly longer than paper documentation. Nurses developed ad hoc workarounds that were inefficient and undermined the intent of electronic documentation. Conclusion. We have identified barriers and opportunities to improve the efficiency of nursing vital signs documentation. Changes in technology, workflows and environmental design allow for significant improvements and deserve further exploration. Relevance to clinical practice. Attention to clinical practice and environments can improve the workflow of prompt vital signs documentation and increase clinical productivity and timeliness of information for clinical decisions, as well as minimising transcription errors leading to safer patient care.

Suggested Citation

  • Melanie S Yeung & Stephen E Lapinsky & John T Granton & Diane M Doran & Joseph A Cafazzo, 2012. "Examining nursing vital signs documentation workflow: barriers and opportunities in general internal medicine units," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(7‐8), pages 975-982, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:21:y:2012:i:7-8:p:975-982
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03937.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03937.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03937.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bernice Redley & Tim Baker, 2019. "Have you SCAND MMe Please? A framework to prevent harm during acute hospitalisation of older persons: A retrospective audit," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3-4), pages 560-574, February.
    2. Marion Tower & Bernadette Watson & Alison Bourke & Emma Tyers & Anne Tin, 2019. "Situation awareness and the decision‐making processes of final‐year nursing students," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(21-22), pages 3923-3934, November.
    3. Doug Elliott & Emily Allen & Sharon McKinley & Lin Perry & Christine Duffield & Margaret Fry & Robyn Gallagher & Rick Iedema & Michael Roche, 2016. "User acceptance of observation and response charts with a track and trigger system: a multisite staff survey," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(15-16), pages 2211-2222, August.
    4. Chiara Dall’Ora & Peter Griffiths & Joanna Hope & Hannah Barker & Gary B Smith, 2020. "What is the nursing time and workload involved in taking and recording patients’ vital signs? A systematic review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(13-14), pages 2053-2068, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:21:y:2012:i:7-8:p:975-982. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.