Impact of an Electronic Medical Record–Connected Questionnaire on Efficient Nursing Documentation: Usability and Efficacy Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Documentation tasks comprise a large percentage of nurses' workloads. Nursing records were partially based on a report from the patient. However, it is not a verbatim transcription of the patient's complaints but a type of medical record. Therefore, to reduce the time spent on nursing documentation, it is necessary to assist in the appropriate conversion or citation of patient reports to professional records. However, few studies have been conducted on systems for capturing patient reports in electronic medical records. In addition, there have been no reports on whether such a system reduces the time spent on nursing documentation. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop a patient self-reporting system that appropriately converts data to nursing records and evaluate its effect on reducing the documenting burden for nurses. METHODS: An electronic medical record-connected questionnaire and a preadmission nursing questionnaire were administered. The questionnaire responses entered by the patients were quoted in the patient profile for inpatient assessment in the nursing system. To clarify its efficacy, this study examined whether the use of the electronic questionnaire system saved the nurses' time entering the patient profile admitted between August and December 2022. It also surveyed the usability of the electronic questionnaire between April and December 2022. RESULTS: A total of 3111 (78%) patients reported that they answered the electronic medical questionnaire by themselves. Of them, 2715 (88%) felt it was easy to use and 2604 (85%) were willing to use it again. The electronic questionnaire was used in 1326 of 2425 admission cases (use group). The input time for the patient profile was significantly shorter in the use group than in the no-use group (P<.001). Stratified analyses showed that in the internal medicine wards and in patients with dependent activities of daily living, nurses took 13%-18% (1.3 to 2 minutes) less time to enter patient profiles within the use group (both P<.001), even though there was no difference in the amount of information. By contrast, in the surgical wards and in the patients with independent activities of daily living, there was no difference in the time to entry (P=.50 and P=.20, respectively), but there was a greater amount of information in the use group. CONCLUSIONS: The study developed and implemented a system in which self-reported patient data were captured in the hospital information network and quoted in the nursing system. This system contributes to improving the efficiency of nurses' task recordings.
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 | 0.023 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".