Copy and paste in the electronic medical record: A scoping review

IF 2.5 4区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Davy Borycki Elizabeth M. Amirav
{"title":"Copy and paste in the electronic medical record: A scoping review","authors":"Davy Borycki Elizabeth M. Amirav","doi":"10.34105/j.kmel.2021.13.028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Copy and paste (CPF) can be defined as the act of duplicating medical documentation from one section of the electronic medical record (EMR) and placing it verbatim in another section. The objective of this scoping review is to: 1) describe the prevalence of copy and paste usage in EMR documentation, 2) detail the known measurable safety hazards associated with its use, and 3) identify potential solutions and/or strategies that can be used to mitigate the negative consequences of the CPF while preserving its essential role in documentation efficiency. The Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines were used to identify, screen, and assess the text of articles for final inclusion in CPF article review. The primary search strategy for copy-paste articles was developed in PubMed® and then translated to CINAHL®, ScienceDirect®, and IEEExplore® to extract additional articles. Identified copy-paste articles were imported into Covidence®. Two reviewers determined the final articles that were included in the review. The search retrieved 63 publications of which 17 were identified for final inclusion. The scoping review revealed CPF of medical text is a common occurrence that cuts across all clinician types (e.g., physicians and nurses). The scoping review revealed that automated methods for finding duplication in electronic documentation had emerged. A limited number of studies with quantifiable harms associated with CPF were found. Clinicians stated that CPF: 1) had a negative impact on critical thinking, 2) led to medical complications being more likely to be overlooked, and 3) led to safety issues being missed with copy-paste content. A few different approaches were tested by researchers as alternatives to CPF. They included dictation systems, practice guidelines, note templates, highlighting of copied information, note splitting, and text insertion. CPF is long overdue for innovative approaches to minimizing patient risk and maximizing provider efficiency.","PeriodicalId":45327,"journal":{"name":"Knowledge Management & E-Learning-An International Journal","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Knowledge Management & E-Learning-An International Journal","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2021.13.028","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Copy and paste (CPF) can be defined as the act of duplicating medical documentation from one section of the electronic medical record (EMR) and placing it verbatim in another section. The objective of this scoping review is to: 1) describe the prevalence of copy and paste usage in EMR documentation, 2) detail the known measurable safety hazards associated with its use, and 3) identify potential solutions and/or strategies that can be used to mitigate the negative consequences of the CPF while preserving its essential role in documentation efficiency. The Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines were used to identify, screen, and assess the text of articles for final inclusion in CPF article review. The primary search strategy for copy-paste articles was developed in PubMed® and then translated to CINAHL®, ScienceDirect®, and IEEExplore® to extract additional articles. Identified copy-paste articles were imported into Covidence®. Two reviewers determined the final articles that were included in the review. The search retrieved 63 publications of which 17 were identified for final inclusion. The scoping review revealed CPF of medical text is a common occurrence that cuts across all clinician types (e.g., physicians and nurses). The scoping review revealed that automated methods for finding duplication in electronic documentation had emerged. A limited number of studies with quantifiable harms associated with CPF were found. Clinicians stated that CPF: 1) had a negative impact on critical thinking, 2) led to medical complications being more likely to be overlooked, and 3) led to safety issues being missed with copy-paste content. A few different approaches were tested by researchers as alternatives to CPF. They included dictation systems, practice guidelines, note templates, highlighting of copied information, note splitting, and text insertion. CPF is long overdue for innovative approaches to minimizing patient risk and maximizing provider efficiency.
在电子病历中复制和粘贴:范围审查
复制粘贴(CPF)可以定义为从电子病历(EMR)的一个部分复制医疗文档,并将其逐字放置在另一个部分的行为。本次范围审查的目标是:1)描述EMR文件中复制粘贴使用的普遍程度,2)详细说明与其使用相关的已知可测量的安全隐患,以及3)确定潜在的解决方案和/或策略,可用于减轻CPF的负面后果,同时保持其在文件效率方面的重要作用。乔安娜布里格斯研究所的指南被用于识别、筛选和评估文章的文本,以最终纳入CPF文章审查。复制粘贴文章的主要搜索策略在PubMed®中开发,然后翻译到CINAHL®,ScienceDirect®和IEEExplore®以提取其他文章。已识别的复制粘贴文章已导入covid®。两位审稿人确定了最终纳入审评的文章。检索到63份出版物,其中17份被确定为最终纳入。范围审查显示,医学文本的CPF是一种常见的现象,横跨所有临床医生类型(例如,医生和护士)。范围审查显示,已经出现了查找电子文件重复的自动化方法。发现与CPF相关的可量化危害的研究数量有限。临床医生指出,CPF: 1)对批判性思维有负面影响,2)导致医疗并发症更容易被忽视,3)导致复制粘贴内容的安全问题被忽视。研究人员测试了几种不同的方法作为CPF的替代品。它们包括听写系统、练习指南、笔记模板、抄写信息的高亮显示、笔记分割和文本插入。CPF早就应该采用创新方法来最大限度地降低患者风险和最大限度地提高提供者效率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
33.30%
发文量
19
审稿时长
25 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信