Documentation in the patient record must be systematic and rigorous. However, each health care profession documents parts of the electronic health record (EHR) separately. This system can lead to double documentation. The aim of the study was to describe the amount of double documentation in health records for in-patients. A retrospective descriptive review of 30 records for in-patients diagnosed with hip fracture was conducted. Double documentation occurred on all records reviewed during the stay in hospital and in or between all professions reviewed. In total, 822 instances of double documentation were found. The EHRs available today are not designed to monitor processes. Instead, they follow each health profession, which can lead to double documentation. It would be desirable to develop an EHR from a process perspective and not a record per profession.
PoonEGWrightASimonSR. Relationship between use of electronic health record features and health care quality: results of a statewide survey. Med Care2010; 48: 203–209. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181c16203.
3.
KeyhaniSHebertPLRossJS. Electronic health record components and the quality of care. Med Care2008; 46: 1267–1272. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31817e18ae.
4.
HäyrinenKSarantoKNykänenP. Definition, structure, content, use and impacts of electronic health records: a review of the research literature. Int J Med Inform2008; 77: 291–304.
5.
SwindellsMde LusignanS. Lessons from the English National Programme for IT about structure, process and utility. Stud Health Technol Inform2012; 174: 17–22.
6.
JensdóttirA-BJónssonPNoroA. Comparison of nurses’ and physicians’ documentation of functional abilities of older patients in acute care – patient records compared with standardized assessment. Scand J Caring Sci2008; 22: 341–347.
7.
Galster G. How to distinguish double documentation from documentation of distinct data. In: Fensli R and Dale JG (eds) SHI2011 Proceedings: 9th Scandinavian Conference on Health Informatics, 30 August 2011, Oslo, Norway. Trondheim: TAPIR Akademisk Forlag, 2011, pp.16–20.
8.
CowdenSJohnsonLC. A process for consolidation of redundant documentation forms. Comput Inform Nurs2004; 22: 90–93.
9.
AmmenwerthEBuchauerABludauB. Mobile information and communication tools in the hospital. Int J Med Inform2000; 57: 21–40.
10.
SamuelsJGKritterD. Pain management documentation: analyzing one hospital’s computerized clinical records. Comput Inform Nurs2011; 29: 512–518.
11.
Lauridsen A and Lundqvist L. Kartläggning av dubbeldokumentation i patientjournalen-förekomst och uppfattningar. [Mapping of duplication of documentation in the patient record instance and perceptions], http://kau.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:157934 (2008, accessed 15 August 2014).
12.
World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki [In Swedish]. In: The Swedish Research Council’s guidelines for the ethical evaluation of medical research on humans. Stockholm: Medicinska forskningsrådet, 2003, pp.99–104.
13.
SFS 2003:460. Lag om etikprövning av forskning som avser människor [Act concerning the ethical review of research involving humans]. Stockholm: Socialdepartementet, 2003.
14.
MeumT. ‘Lost in translation’: the challenges of seamless integration in nursing practices. Int J Med Inform2013; 82: 200–208.
15.
LatinenHKaunonenMÅstedt-KurkiP. The impact of using electronic patient records on practices of reading and writing. Health Inform J2014; 20: 235–249.
16.
WangNHaileyDYuP. Quality of nursing documentation and approaches to its evaluation: a mixed-method systematic review. J Adv Nurs2011; 67: 1858–1875.
17.
JefferiesDJohnsonMGriffithsR. A meta-study of the essentials of quality nursing documentation. Int J Nurs Pract2010; 16: 112–124.
18.
Carpenito-MoyetLJ. Nursing care plans and documentation: nursing diagnoses and collaborative problems, Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2004.
19.
LluchM. Healthcare professionals’ organisational barriers to health information technologies—a literature review. Int J Med Inform2011; 80: 849–862.
20.
SOSFS 2008:14. Socialstyrelsens föreskrifter om informationshantering och journalföring i hälso- och sjukvård [The Board’s regulations on information management and record keeping in health care]. Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen.
21.
MäenpääaTSuominenaPAsikainenbP. The outcomes of regional healthcare information systems in health care: a review of the research literature. Int J Med Inform2009; 78: 757–771.
22.
LeighebFVanhaechtKSermeusW. The effect of care pathways for hip fractures: a systematic review. Calcif Tissue Int2012; 91: 1–14.
23.
OlssonPTPetersonHWillmanA. Standardized care plans in Swedish health care: their quality and the extent to which they are used. Scand J Caring Sci2009; 23: 820–825.
24.
Fogelberg-DahmMWadenstenB. Nurses’ experience of and opinions about using standardized care plans in electronic health records – a questionnaire study. J Clin Nurs2008; 17: 2137–2145.
25.
Törnvall E and Jansson I. Preliminary evidence for the usefulness of standardized nursing terminologies in different fields of application: a literature review. Int J Nurs Knowl. Epub ahead of print 25 November 2015. DOI: 10.1111/2047-3095.12123.
