Insook Cho1, Eunman Kim2, Woan Heui Choi3, Nancy Staggers4. 1. Nursing Department, Inha University, Incheon, South Korea. Electronic address: Insook.cho@inha.ac.kr. 2. Department of Nursing, Sunmoon University, Chungnam, South Korea. 3. Department of Nursing, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea. 4. College of Nursing, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study examined the usability of six differing electronic nursing record (ENR) systems on the efficiency, proficiency and available functions for documenting nursing care and subsequently compared the results to nurses' perceived satisfaction from a previous study. METHODS: The six hospitals had different ENR systems, all with narrative nursing notes in use for more than three years. Stratified by type of nursing unit, 54 staff nurses were digitally recorded during on-site usability testing by employing validated patient care scenarios and think-aloud protocols. The time to complete specific tasks was also measured. Qualitative performance data were converted into scores on efficiency (relevancy), proficiency (accuracy), and a competency index using scoring schemes described by McGuire and Babbott. Six nurse managers and the researchers completed assessments of available ENR functions and examined computerized nursing process components including the linkages among them. RESULTS: For the usability test, participants' mean efficiency score was 94.2% (95% CI, 91.4-96.9%). The mean proficiency was 60.6% (95% CI, 54.3-66.8%), and the mean competency index was 59.5% (95% CI, 52.9-66.0). Efficiency scores were significantly different across ENRs as was the time to complete tasks, ranging from 226.3 to 457.2s (χ(2)=12.3, P=0.031; χ(2)=11.2, P=0.048). No significant differences were seen for proficiency scores. The coverage of the various ENRs' nursing process ranged from 67% to 100%, but only two systems had complete integration of nursing components. Two systems with high efficiency and proficiency scores had much lower usability test scores and perceived user satisfaction along with more complex navigation patterns. CONCLUSIONS: In terms of system usability and functions, different levels of sophistication of and interaction performance with ENR systems exist in practice. This suggests that ENRs may have variable impacts on clinical outcomes and care quality. Future studies are needed to explore ENR impact on nursing care quality, efficiency, and safety.
OBJECTIVES: This study examined the usability of six differing electronic nursing record (ENR) systems on the efficiency, proficiency and available functions for documenting nursing care and subsequently compared the results to nurses' perceived satisfaction from a previous study. METHODS: The six hospitals had different ENR systems, all with narrative nursing notes in use for more than three years. Stratified by type of nursing unit, 54 staff nurses were digitally recorded during on-site usability testing by employing validated patient care scenarios and think-aloud protocols. The time to complete specific tasks was also measured. Qualitative performance data were converted into scores on efficiency (relevancy), proficiency (accuracy), and a competency index using scoring schemes described by McGuire and Babbott. Six nurse managers and the researchers completed assessments of available ENR functions and examined computerized nursing process components including the linkages among them. RESULTS: For the usability test, participants' mean efficiency score was 94.2% (95% CI, 91.4-96.9%). The mean proficiency was 60.6% (95% CI, 54.3-66.8%), and the mean competency index was 59.5% (95% CI, 52.9-66.0). Efficiency scores were significantly different across ENRs as was the time to complete tasks, ranging from 226.3 to 457.2s (χ(2)=12.3, P=0.031; χ(2)=11.2, P=0.048). No significant differences were seen for proficiency scores. The coverage of the various ENRs' nursing process ranged from 67% to 100%, but only two systems had complete integration of nursing components. Two systems with high efficiency and proficiency scores had much lower usability test scores and perceived user satisfaction along with more complex navigation patterns. CONCLUSIONS: In terms of system usability and functions, different levels of sophistication of and interaction performance with ENR systems exist in practice. This suggests that ENRs may have variable impacts on clinical outcomes and care quality. Future studies are needed to explore ENR impact on nursing care quality, efficiency, and safety.