IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v27y2018i3-4pe578-e589.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quality of nursing documentation: Paper‐based health records versus electronic‐based health records

Author

Listed:
  • Laila Akhu‐Zaheya
  • Rowaida Al‐Maaitah
  • Salam Bany Hani

Abstract

Aims and objectives To assess and compare the quality of paper‐based and electronic‐based health records. The comparison examined three criteria: content, documentation process and structure. Background Nursing documentation is a significant indicator of the quality of patient care delivery. It can be either paper‐based or organised within the system known as the electronic health records. Nursing documentation must be completed at the highest standards, to ensure the safety and quality of healthcare services. However, the evidence is not clear on which one of the two forms of documentation (paper‐based versus electronic health records is more qualified. Methods A retrospective, descriptive, comparative design was used to address the study's purposes. A convenient number of patients’ records, from two public hospitals, were audited using the Cat‐ch‐Ing audit instrument. The sample size consisted of 434 records for both paper‐based health records and electronic health records from medical and surgical wards. Results Electronic health records were better than paper‐based health records in terms of process and structure. In terms of quantity and quality content, paper‐based records were better than electronic health records. The study affirmed the poor quality of nursing documentation and lack of nurses’ knowledge and skills in the nursing process and its application in both paper‐based and electronic‐based systems. Conclusion Both forms of documentation revealed drawbacks in terms of content, process and structure. This study provided important information, which can guide policymakers and administrators in identifying effective strategies aimed at enhancing the quality of nursing documentation. Relevance to clinical practice Policies and actions to ensure quality nursing documentation at the national level should focus on improving nursing knowledge, competencies, practice in nursing process, enhancing the work environment and nursing workload, as well as strengthening the capacity building of nursing practice to improve the quality of nursing care and patients’ outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Laila Akhu‐Zaheya & Rowaida Al‐Maaitah & Salam Bany Hani, 2018. "Quality of nursing documentation: Paper‐based health records versus electronic‐based health records," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3-4), pages 578-589, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:27:y:2018:i:3-4:p:e578-e589
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.14097
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14097
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.14097?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sally Wilson & Yvonne Hauck & Alexandra Bremner & Judith Finn, 2012. "Quality nursing care in Australian paediatric hospitals: a Delphi approach to identifying indicators," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(11‐12), pages 1594-1605, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Mercedes Fernández-Castro & José-María Jiménez & Belén Martín-Gil & María-Fé Muñoz-Moreno & María-José Castro & María-José Cao & María López, 2021. "The Impact of COVID-19 on Levels of Adherence to the Completion of Nursing Records for Inpatients in Isolation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-8, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      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:27:y:2018:i:3-4:p:e578-e589. 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.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.