Identifying and adapting interventions to reduce documentation burden and improve nurses’ efficiency in using electronic health record systems (The IDEA Study): protocol for a mixed methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although EHR systems have become a critical part of clinical care, nurses are experiencing a growing burden due to documentation requirements, taking time away from other important clinical activities. There is a need to address the inefficiencies and challenges that nurses face when documenting in and using EHRs. The objective of this study is to engage nurses in generating ideas on how organizations can support and optimize nurses' experiences with their EHR systems, thereby improving efficiency and reducing EHR-related burden. This work will ensure the identified solutions are grounded in nurses' perspectives and experiences and will address their specific EHR-related needs. METHODS: This mixed methods study will consist of three phases. Phase 1 will evaluate the accuracy of the EHR system's analytics platform in capturing how nurses utilize the system in real-time for tasks such as documentation, chart review, and medication reconciliation. Phase 2 consists of a retrospective analysis of the nursing-specific analytics platform and focus groups with nurses to understand and contextualize their usage patterns. These focus groups will also be used to identify areas for improvement in the utilization of the EHR. Phase 3 will include focus groups with nurses to generate and adapt potential interventions to address the areas for improvement and assess the perceived relevance, feasibility, and impact of the potential interventions. DISCUSSION: This work will generate insights on addressing nurses' EHR-related burden and burnout. By understanding and contextualizing inefficiencies and current practices, opportunities to improve EHR systems for nursing professional practice will be identified. The study findings will inform the co-design and implementation of interventions that will support adoption and impact. Future work will include the evaluation of the developed interventions, and research on scaling and disseminating the interventions for use in different organizations, EHR systems, and jurisdictions in Canada.
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 | 0.062 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.012 |
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".