Evaluating Nurses’ Perceptions of Documentation in the Electronic Health Record: Multimethod Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Nurses are one of the largest user groups of the electronic health record (EHR) system, relying on its tools to support patient care and nursing workflows. Recent studies suggested that the redesign of nursing documentation may reduce the time spent in the EHR system and improve nurse satisfaction. Objective: We aimed to assess nurses' perceptions of the redesigned EHR, evaluate the impact of documentation interventions, and identify future improvement needs. Methods: Guided by the American Nursing Informatics Association's Six Domains of Burden conceptual framework, this multimethod project combined both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Registered nurses across the academic health system were recruited via email invitations to participate in focus group discussions. The focus groups were conducted via a web conference and ranged from 60 to 90 minutes in duration. The focus group discussions were transcribed and analyzed through thematic analysis. The EHR vendor's time data were used to analyze nurses' time spent in documentation. Results: In total, 20 registered nurses participated in the focus group discussions, and 17 nurses completed the demographic survey; 88% (15/17) of participants had ≥3 years of EHR experience at the academic health system, and 53% (9/17) self-reported being competent in the EHR system. The following six themes emerged: positive feedback, usability and workflow opportunities, nuisance, training and education, communication, and time spent in the system. EHR vendor time data revealed that the time spent in flowsheets averaged 31.11% per 12-hour shift. Conclusions: Overall, participants reported a positive experience and that the EHR supported patient care. There are opportunities to further reduce redundancies in documentation and implement programs that support continuous learning about EHR and health technology tools. Specific suggestions include optimizing the oral health assessment tool. Analyzing frontline nursing perspectives in the redesign of EHR workflows is imperative for identifying interventions that support nurses' satisfaction with the EHR.
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 | 0.037 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".