Evaluation of interventions to improve inpatient hospital documentation within electronic health records: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite the widespread and increasing use of electronic health records (EHRs), the quality of EHRs is problematic. Efforts have been made to address reasons for poor EHR documentation quality. Previous systematic reviews have assessed intervention effectiveness within the outpatient setting or paper documentation. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of interventions seeking to improve EHR documentation within an inpatient setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search strategy was developed based on elaborated inclusion/exclusion criteria. Four databases, gray literature, and reference lists were searched. A REDCap data capture form was used for data extraction, and study quality was assessed using a customized tool. Data were analyzed and synthesized in a narrative, semiquantitative manner. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were included in this systematic review. Owing to high heterogeneity, quantitative comparison was not possible. However, statistically significant results in interventions and affected outcomes were analyzed and discussed. Education and implementation of a new EHR reporting system were the most successful interventions, as evidenced by significantly improved EHR documentation. DISCUSSION: Heterogeneity of interventions, outcomes, document type, EHR user, and other variables led to difficulty in measuring EHR documentation quality and effectiveness of interventions. However, the use of education as a primary intervention aligned closely with existing literature in similar fields. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions implemented to enhance EHR documentation are highly variable and require standardization. Emphasis should be placed on this novel area of research to improve communication between healthcare providers and facilitate data sharing between centers and countries. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42017083494.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".