定义所有卫生专业人员的文件负担(DocBurden)和过重的文件负担:范围审查。

IF 2.1 2区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL INFORMATICS
Applied Clinical Informatics Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-13 DOI:10.1055/a-2385-1654
Deborah R Levy, Jennifer B Withall, Rebecca G Mishuris, Victoria Tiase, Courtney Diamond, Brian Douthit, Monika Grabowska, Rachel Y Lee, Amanda J Moy, Patricia Sengstack, Julia Adler-Milstein, Don Eugene Detmer, Kevin B Johnson, James J Cimino, Sarah Corley, Judy Murphy, S Trent Rosenbloom, Kenrick Cato, Sarah C Rossetti
{"title":"定义所有卫生专业人员的文件负担(DocBurden)和过重的文件负担:范围审查。","authors":"Deborah R Levy, Jennifer B Withall, Rebecca G Mishuris, Victoria Tiase, Courtney Diamond, Brian Douthit, Monika Grabowska, Rachel Y Lee, Amanda J Moy, Patricia Sengstack, Julia Adler-Milstein, Don Eugene Detmer, Kevin B Johnson, James J Cimino, Sarah Corley, Judy Murphy, S Trent Rosenbloom, Kenrick Cato, Sarah C Rossetti","doi":"10.1055/a-2385-1654","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong> Efforts to reduce documentation burden (DocBurden) for all health professionals (HP) are aligned with national initiatives to improve clinician wellness and patient safety. Yet DocBurden has not been precisely defined, limiting national conversations and rigorous, reproducible, and meaningful measures. Increasing attention to DocBurden motivated this work to establish a standard definition of DocBurden, with the emergence of excessive DocBurden as a term.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong> We conducted a scoping review of DocBurden definitions and descriptions, searching six databases for scholarly, peer-reviewed, and gray literature sources, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extensions for Scoping Review guidance. For the concept clarification phase of work, we used the American Nursing Informatics Association's Six Domains of Burden Framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> A total of 153 articles were included based on a priori criteria. Most articles described a focus on DocBurden, but only 18% (<i>n</i> = 28) provided a definition. We define <i>excessive</i> DocBurden as the stress and unnecessarily heavy work an HP or health care team experiences when usability of documentation systems and documentation activities (i.e., generation, review, analysis, and synthesis of patient data) are not aligned in support of care delivery. A negative connotation was attached to burden without a neutral state in included sources, which does not align with dictionary definitions of burden.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> Existing literature does not distinguish between a baseline or required task load to conduct patient care resulting from usability issues (<i>DocBurden</i>), and the unnecessarily heavy tasks and requirements that contribute to <i>excessive DocBurden</i>. Our definition of excessive DocBurden explicitly acknowledges this distinction, to support development of meaningful measures for understanding and intervening on excessive DocBurden locally, nationally, and internationally.</p>","PeriodicalId":48956,"journal":{"name":"Applied Clinical Informatics","volume":" ","pages":"898-913"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11524753/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Defining Documentation Burden (DocBurden) and Excessive DocBurden for All Health Professionals: A Scoping Review.\",\"authors\":\"Deborah R Levy, Jennifer B Withall, Rebecca G Mishuris, Victoria Tiase, Courtney Diamond, Brian Douthit, Monika Grabowska, Rachel Y Lee, Amanda J Moy, Patricia Sengstack, Julia Adler-Milstein, Don Eugene Detmer, Kevin B Johnson, James J Cimino, Sarah Corley, Judy Murphy, S Trent Rosenbloom, Kenrick Cato, Sarah C Rossetti\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2385-1654\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong> Efforts to reduce documentation burden (DocBurden) for all health professionals (HP) are aligned with national initiatives to improve clinician wellness and patient safety. Yet DocBurden has not been precisely defined, limiting national conversations and rigorous, reproducible, and meaningful measures. Increasing attention to DocBurden motivated this work to establish a standard definition of DocBurden, with the emergence of excessive DocBurden as a term.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong> We conducted a scoping review of DocBurden definitions and descriptions, searching six databases for scholarly, peer-reviewed, and gray literature sources, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extensions for Scoping Review guidance. For the concept clarification phase of work, we used the American Nursing Informatics Association's Six Domains of Burden Framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> A total of 153 articles were included based on a priori criteria. Most articles described a focus on DocBurden, but only 18% (<i>n</i> = 28) provided a definition. We define <i>excessive</i> DocBurden as the stress and unnecessarily heavy work an HP or health care team experiences when usability of documentation systems and documentation activities (i.e., generation, review, analysis, and synthesis of patient data) are not aligned in support of care delivery. A negative connotation was attached to burden without a neutral state in included sources, which does not align with dictionary definitions of burden.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> Existing literature does not distinguish between a baseline or required task load to conduct patient care resulting from usability issues (<i>DocBurden</i>), and the unnecessarily heavy tasks and requirements that contribute to <i>excessive DocBurden</i>. Our definition of excessive DocBurden explicitly acknowledges this distinction, to support development of meaningful measures for understanding and intervening on excessive DocBurden locally, nationally, and internationally.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48956,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Clinical Informatics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"898-913\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11524753/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Clinical Informatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2385-1654\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL INFORMATICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Clinical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2385-1654","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标:努力减轻所有医疗专业人员(HP)的文档负担(DocBurden)与改善临床医生健康和患者安全的国家倡议是一致的。然而,文档负担尚未得到准确定义,从而限制了全国性对话以及严格、可重复和有意义的衡量标准。随着 "医生负担过重 "一词的出现,人们对 "医生负担 "的关注与日俱增,这促使我们开展了这项工作,以确定 "医生负担 "的标准定义:我们对 DocBurden 的定义和描述进行了一次范围界定审查,使用《系统性审查和元分析扩展报告首选项》(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extensions for Scoping Review,PRISMA-ScR)指南搜索了六个数据库中的学术文献、同行评审文献和灰色文献来源。在概念澄清阶段,我们使用了美国护理信息学协会(ANIA)的 6 领域负担框架:根据先验标准,共收录了 153 篇文章。大多数文章都描述了文档负担的重点,但只有 18%(n=28)的文章提供了定义。我们将过重的文档负担定义为:当文档系统的可用性与文档活动(即患者数据的生成、审核、分析和综合)不一致时,医疗保健人员或医疗保健团队所承受的压力和不必要的繁重工作,以支持医疗服务的提供。在收录的资料中,负担被赋予了负面的含义,没有中性的状态,这与字典中对负担的定义不符:现有文献没有区分因可用性问题(文件负担)而导致的患者护理基线或所需的任务负荷,以及造成文件负担过重的不必要的繁重任务和要求。我们对 "文件负担过重 "的定义明确承认了这一区别,以支持制定有意义的措施,用于了解和干预地方、国家和国际范围内的文件负担过重问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Defining Documentation Burden (DocBurden) and Excessive DocBurden for All Health Professionals: A Scoping Review.

Objectives:  Efforts to reduce documentation burden (DocBurden) for all health professionals (HP) are aligned with national initiatives to improve clinician wellness and patient safety. Yet DocBurden has not been precisely defined, limiting national conversations and rigorous, reproducible, and meaningful measures. Increasing attention to DocBurden motivated this work to establish a standard definition of DocBurden, with the emergence of excessive DocBurden as a term.

Methods:  We conducted a scoping review of DocBurden definitions and descriptions, searching six databases for scholarly, peer-reviewed, and gray literature sources, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extensions for Scoping Review guidance. For the concept clarification phase of work, we used the American Nursing Informatics Association's Six Domains of Burden Framework.

Results:  A total of 153 articles were included based on a priori criteria. Most articles described a focus on DocBurden, but only 18% (n = 28) provided a definition. We define excessive DocBurden as the stress and unnecessarily heavy work an HP or health care team experiences when usability of documentation systems and documentation activities (i.e., generation, review, analysis, and synthesis of patient data) are not aligned in support of care delivery. A negative connotation was attached to burden without a neutral state in included sources, which does not align with dictionary definitions of burden.

Conclusion:  Existing literature does not distinguish between a baseline or required task load to conduct patient care resulting from usability issues (DocBurden), and the unnecessarily heavy tasks and requirements that contribute to excessive DocBurden. Our definition of excessive DocBurden explicitly acknowledges this distinction, to support development of meaningful measures for understanding and intervening on excessive DocBurden locally, nationally, and internationally.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Applied Clinical Informatics
Applied Clinical Informatics MEDICAL INFORMATICS-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
24.10%
发文量
132
期刊介绍: ACI is the third Schattauer journal dealing with biomedical and health informatics. It perfectly complements our other journals Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterMethods of Information in Medicine and the Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterYearbook of Medical Informatics. The Yearbook of Medical Informatics being the “Milestone” or state-of-the-art journal and Methods of Information in Medicine being the “Science and Research” journal of IMIA, ACI intends to be the “Practical” journal of IMIA.
×
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