MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410894657 · doi:10.62212/snahp.130

Nurses’ Perceptions on the Usability of Electronic Health Records: A Scoping Review

2025· review· en· W4410894657 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Stephen Moore, Anna Garnett, Kelly Mason, Eunice Onigbinde, Halyna Yurkiv

Bibliographic record

VenueScience of Nursing and Health Practices · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityHealth recordsPerceptionPsychologyComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionHealth carePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Electronic health records (EHRs) are designed to enhance the efficiency and quality of nursing workflows and documentation. EHR usability refers to how effectively the system supports users to accomplish their work tasks. However, the understanding of nurses’ perceptions of EHRs usability in inpatient settings is limited. Objective: Examine the available literature on nurses’ perceptions of EHRs usability in these settings. Methods: This scoping review was guided by the Arksey and O’Malley (2005) methodology and methodological steps of the Joana Brigs Institute (Peters et al., 2015). Search terms included combinations of synonyms for nurses, perceptions, and EHRs usability. Eligible sources of data were primary research studies published in English between January 1, 2013, and July 1, 2024, and extracted from PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus databases. Inclusion criteria targeted Registered Nurses and Registered Practical Nurses in inpatient hospital settings in North America, Europe and Australia. Findings were presented descriptively and thematically using a narrative analysis. Results: Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria. The narrative synthesis generated five themes: 1) ease of information accessibility; 2) nursing workflow challenges; 3) EHR design, technical issues, interoperability; 4) impact of the EHR on the nurse-patient relationship, and 5) user training. Nurses identified factors that positively impacted EHRs usability, such as real-time access to patient information in one location, the ability to view patterns and trends in patient status, and improved interprofessional collaboration, but they shared disproportionally negative perceptions of EHRs usability. Discussion and Conclusion: Future research should focus on addressing these challenges to optimize EHR design, enhance training strategies, and improve system interoperability, ultimately supporting nursing workflows and enhancing patient care quality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.155
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.155
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0250.020
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.360
GPT teacher head0.655
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience of Nursing and Health PracticesSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207