Keywords

Care planning, Clinical decision support system, Importance-performance analysis, Nursing process, Standardized care plan, Standardized nursing language

 

Authors

  1. Zhai, Yue MSN, RN
  2. Zhang, Yuxia PhD, RN, FAAN

Abstract

Standardized care plans are being increasingly introduced to health facilities; however, their level of adoption remains unsatisfactory. Little is known about nurses' use of standardized care plans in China. This study aims to investigate acute care nurses' practices and experiences of care planning within a clinical decision support system embedded with standardized nursing languages. We explored the importance and performance of nursing interventions by retrospective analysis of 400 standardized care plans (performance) and a survey among nurses (importance). Semistructured interviews were conducted to supplement quantitative findings and delve deeper into nurses' experience with standardized care plans. A total of six core nursing diagnoses were determined, each corresponding to seven to 15 nursing interventions. The correlations between nurses' perceived importance and actual performance of nursing interventions in the care plan were weak. Qualitative interviews identified three themes: negative attitudes toward the care plan, uncertainty regarding care planning, and new routines with the care plan. Our findings indicate that nurses' care planning may not reflect their professional judgments. Effective leadership from nurse administrators is warranted to engage nurses with standardized care plan implementation. The content of the standardized nursing language embedded-knowledge base should be continuously adapted to clinical needs to facilitate nurses' care planning practices.

 

Article Content

With the widespread use of nursing information systems (NISs) in hospital settings, electronic documentation has become the mainstream form of information storage, exchange, and analysis.1 Embedded with a combination of standardized nursing language (SNL) and software algorithms based on an abundance of scientific evidence, the nursing clinical decision support system (Nu-CDSS) mimics expert thinking, representing the advanced stage of NIS.2 The nursing CDSS provides nurses with suggested nursing diagnoses, interventions, and care evaluations based on the clients' clinical information,3 which foster clinical reasoning and evidence-based practice.4 The adoption of nursing process-based CDSS has been reported to reduce nurses' documentation burden,5 improve documentation completeness,6 and nursing-sensitive outcomes.6

 

Standardized care plans (SCPs) are an integrated component of the Nu-CDSS, representing nurses' decision-making based on clinical thinking and professional judgment together with decision support by the CDSS.3 It has been pointed out that "care plans provide a course of direction for personalized care tailored to an individual's unique needs,"7 which suggests the formulation of care plans according to nursing diagnoses as central to the nursing process and the foundation of quality care.

 

The introduction of SCPs increased the visibility and transparency8 of nursing as well as the content and completeness of documentation.9 However, because of the lack of clarity of statements inherent in SNLs,10,11 nurses are finding it difficult to formulate care plans using SNLs, thus undermining the clinical usefulness of SCPs. Concerns have been raised about the potential of deindividualization and fragmentation of care with the use of SCPs.12,13 Nurses' perceptions and attitudes toward SCPs also affect their use.14,15 Bedside nursing has long been practiced as a task-oriented profession with little focus on the nursing process or care planning. Studies16,17 have shown that nurses lack the ability to develop care plans based on nursing diagnoses because of insufficient understanding of the nursing process. Moreover, some nurses view care plans as an additional documentation requirement to serve administrative purposes rather than a guide to practice,14,18 which hinders SCP implementation. A 2018 study by D'Agostino et al19 identified large variations among nurses regarding attitude toward, intention to, and actual behavior in making nursing diagnoses in clinical documentation. Deficits in care plan formulation were pervasive with various biases, omissions, and lack of long-term perspectives identified in aged care settings according to a US study.20 Despite extensive research into this area, incorporation of SNLs and SCPs into the NIS remains unsatisfactory even in countries with advanced stages of nursing informatization21,22 and nurses' perceived usefulness of information provided by SNLs are important determinants of their adoption.

 

The SCP within the CDSS, which is supported by expert thinking, should guide the provision of quality nursing care. Recently, Park et al23 investigated the consistency between nursing practice and documentation in electronic nursing records using the importance-performance analysis (IPA), indicating the high consistency between nurses' self-appraised importance and performance among various nursing interventions. However, research has also shown that much of the nursing activities were left undocumented in the NIS, which can in part be attributed to nurses' lack of in-service training on standardized nursing process24 and the documentation templates not meeting clinical needs.25 Compared with countries leading in health information technology development, SCPs are relatively new to health institutions in China, and there is little research on nurses' experience with SCPs. Based on previous findings, the extent to which nursing practice is reflected in the SCP is worth exploring.

 

STUDY AIM

This article aims to explore how nurses develop SCPs under a commercial Nu-CDSS by investigating the importance and performance of nursing interventions corresponding to each nursing diagnosis in the SCP followed by qualitative interviews to delve deeper into nurses' experience with SCPs.

 

METHODS

Design

This is a mixed-methods study with the quantitative part using the IPA23 and the qualitative part using semistructured interviews.

 

Setting

This study was conducted in a 2200-bed tertiary teaching hospital in Shanghai, China, which employs more than 2000 nurses. From 2020 to 2021, the Nu-CDSS was implemented in 20 general wards, and each ward employs an average of 17 nurses.

 

The Nursing Clinical Decision Support System

The Clinical Care Classification (CCC) developed by Dr Saba et al26 was chosen as the SNL to guide development of the Nu-CDSS. Using the nursing process as the theoretical framework, CCC comprises 21 care elements, 176 nursing diagnoses, and 201 core nursing interventions divided into four action types: assess, perform, teach, and manage.27 The CCC was translated into Chinese in 2018 and updated to version 2.5 by the time Nu-CDSS development began.28 Because CCC covers three stages of the nursing process (diagnosis, intervention, and evaluation), it better represents nursing practice compared with other recognized SNLs.29

 

Based on the CCC coding principles, nursing informaticists together with nursing experts in China expanded the core interventions in CCC version 2.5 to develop a comprehensive nursing knowledge base containing 1825 nursing interventions.30 Association algorithms between nursing assessment, nursing diagnoses, and nursing interventions were also established by 16 nursing experts to form a nursing process-based CDSS. Our hospital introduced the Nu-CDSS for pilot use in 2020. The system has been in use for 2 years and has accumulated nursing records for thousands of inpatients. Refer to supplementary materials for the care planning interface (Supplementary Figure 1, http://links.lww.com/CIN/A229) and a sample file of the care plan exported from the system (Supplementary Figure 2, http://links.lww.com/CIN/A230).

 

Sample

Four medical-surgical wards were randomly chosen for this study. All nurses working on the wards were deemed eligible to participate except for those who had been employed for less than 1 year at the time of recruitment because of their limited access to the Nu-CDSS. A total of 52 nurses participated in the quantitative part (response rate, 86.7%), including 12 in general surgery, 14 in thoracic surgery, 12 in endocrinology, and 14 in neurology. The average years in nursing were 10.28 +/- 8.49 (range, 1-31). Six of the participants were head nurses/specialist nurses/education nurses, and the rest had no administrative positions. Ten nurses were purposively selected to participate in semistructured interviews, among whom three were head nurses, and the rest were staff nurses. Their work experience as a nurse ranged from 3 to 28 years.

 

Data Collection

Importance-Performance Analysis

Importance-performance analysis is a business research methodology proposed by Martilla and James in 1977.31 Importance-performance analysis later evolved into a common management tool for organizational performance development and has been applied to various disciplines, which has implications for quality improvement. In nursing, IPA has been used as a tool to evaluate the effect of hospital information system implementation32 and to guide the improvement of care quality.33-35

 

Performance of Nursing Interventions Corresponding to Each Nursing Diagnosis

The nursing records of discharged patients, dating back from August 30, 2021, were retrospectively extracted from the Nu-CDSS. We determined the sample size to be 100 for each department, and a total of 400 SCPs were reviewed. To ensure there was enough content in the SCP, only clients with a minimum 3-day length of hospital stay were included. The performance of nursing interventions is represented by the number of times they appear corresponding to a certain nursing diagnosis. For each SCP, multiple occurrences of an intervention corresponding to the same nursing diagnosis were not accumulated. Data extraction from the SCPs was carried by two investigators to ensure trustworthiness of the data.

 

Importance of Nursing Interventions Corresponding to Each Nursing Diagnosis

According to the most prevalent nursing diagnoses and corresponding nursing interventions in the SCPs we reviewed, an evaluation form was constructed regarding the perceived importance of the nursing interventions linked to each diagnosis. Each item was scored 1 to 4 from "not very important" to "a bit important," "important," and "very important." Content validity was evaluated by five nursing experts who were involved in Nu-CDSS implementation and had clinical teaching experience related to the nursing process and care planning. Nursing interventions regarded by the experts to have poor correlation with each nursing diagnosis were deleted. Then, the evaluation form was distributed to all eligible nurses in October 2021. The average score was used to determine the importance of nursing interventions. In addition, interventions required by a medical order such as "administering enteral nutrition" and "preoperative nutritional support" were collected for response but not included in the final analysis.

 

Semistructured Interviews

From November 2021 to January 2022, semistructured individual interviews were conducted by the first author (Y. Zhai) to gain deeper insights into their experiences with SCPs in their practices using a topic guide informed by previous literature,36,37 which included four questions: (1) What is your perspective on using the SCP? (2) What is your experience with care planning in the Nu-CDSS? (3) Do you have any difficulties associated with care planning in the Nu-CDSS? Please elaborate. (4) What have been/can be done to improve care planning in the system? The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim before sending back to the participants for verification. The length of the interviews ranged from 22 to 47 minutes, averaging 33 minutes.

 

Data Analysis

The quantitative data were imported into IBM SPSS Statistics version 21 (IBM Inc., Armonk, NY, USA) for statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics (mean, SD) were used to analyze the importance scores. The correlation between performance and importance of nursing interventions corresponding to each nursing diagnosis was analyzed with bivariate Pearson's correlation.

 

Two researchers independently analyzed the interview transcripts and negotiated if they disagreed until a consensus was reached. We used Braun and Clarke's38 thematic analysis to code the text step by step: (1) We read through the text to become familiar with the content, (2) extracted meaningful statements from the text to form the initial codings, (3) compared the initial codings and summarized similar concepts to form the prototype of theme, (4) compared and adjusted the prototype of the theme and the coding, and (5) confirmed the theme and named it.

 

Ethical Considerations

This study was approved by the ethics committee of Zhongshan Hospital affiliated with Fudan University (project number B2021-481R). All research subjects signed an informed consent form before participating in the study.

 

RESULTS

Core Nursing Diagnoses and Corresponding Interventions

According to the prevalence of nursing problems and the relevance of nursing interventions in the SCPs reviewed, six core nursing problems were determined, corresponding to a total of 58 nursing interventions. Each nursing problem corresponds to 7 to 15 nursing interventions (Table 1). For instance, for the diagnosis bleeding risk, "Notify doctor of changes in patient condition," "Monitor vital signs," "Watch for signs of bleeding," "Provide local compression hemostasis," "Assess factors associated with bleeding risk," "Monitor coagulation lab results," and "Provide health education on bleeding-related knowledge" were identified as its associated interventions.

  
Table 1 - Click to enlarge in new windowTable 1 Summary of Nursing Interventions Corresponding to Each Nursing Diagnosis

The Importance and Performance of Nursing Interventions

The mean scores of importance of nursing interventions were 2.67 to 3.83, and their frequency in the SCPs reviewed ranged from 3 to 168. The performance (frequency in the SCP) and importance (scores based on the questionnaire) of interventions linked to activities of daily living (ADL) alteration are listed in Table 2. Refer to supplementary tables, http://links.lww.com/CIN/A231, for IPA of interventions linked to other nursing diagnoses.

  
Table 2 - Click to enlarge in new windowTable 2 Interventions Linked to Activities of Daily Living Alteration

The correlation between performance and importance of nursing interventions corresponding to each nursing diagnosis was -0.241 to 0.413 (P > .05) (Table 3).

  
Table 3 - Click to enlarge in new windowTable 3 Correlation Between Performance and Importance of Nursing Interventions Linked to Each Nursing Diagnosis

Qualitative Results

Three themes emerged from the analysis: struggling to adapt to SCPs, SCPs poorly adapted to clinical needs, and gaining new routines with care planning.

 

Struggling to Adapt to Standardized Care Plans

Nurses in our setting rarely did care planning before the introduction of the Nu-CDSS. Although the nursing process-based framework embedded in the Nu-CDSS improved the completeness of nursing documentation, nurses struggled to adapt their routines to the Nu-CDSS, especially for experienced nurses who already had a deep mindset with the old system, which is built upon task-oriented nursing.

 

Those of us who have been working for so many years have already formed a working pattern and know what to do every day, so we may not follow this system[horizontal ellipsis] and changing this inherent thinking is quite difficult. If you ask us to completely follow the care plan, we feel that maybe we won't be able to do it. (Staff nurse, 8 years)

 

[horizontal ellipsis]it (the CDSS) is really confusing, which may be inconvenient for us, and we haven't completely accepted it. (Staff nurse, 8 years)

 

Because of lack of perceived usefulness, some nurses viewed the care planning process as a meaningless task and may blindly follow the CDSS guidance without much thought as to whether the care plan addresses the patient's care need, which in turn caused confusion to nurses on subsequent shifts.

 

Some nurses may be in a hurry to get off work and don't bother to go through a careful screening of the nursing interventions during care planning. They just click and save[horizontal ellipsis] then you will see a patient with as many as 14 schedules within an hour when you take over. (Staff nurse, 4 years)

 

Standardized Care Plans Poorly Adapted to Clinical Needs

The nursing process is well-recognized as conducive to delivering patient-centered care according to the care needs identified through assessment. However, the suitability of using a care plan in acute care settings where most patients have a short length of hospital stay was questioned by nurses. Nurses felt that individualized care was hardly possible under the task-based routines and time constraints.

 

We have such a large workload, to be honest, I think it is more appropriate for us to complete tasks in batches, rather than provide customized interventions for each single patient. There is no time to do it at all. (Staff nurse, 2 years)

 

Some nurses thought the preset standardized interventions in the Nu-CDSS to be generic and lacking context so that the SCPs had little value in guiding subsequent practice.

 

I don't think the plan is like a plan, it's just an intervention. If the system really had a better plan, it would help us achieve nursing goals and that would be pretty good. But it doesn't, so it's useless. (Staff nurse, 2 years)

 

Because of the large number of interventions in the built-in knowledge base of CDSS, nurses were confused about how to choose between them, and there was a certain randomness among nurses when developing care plans.

 

I feel like those interventions should all be checked, but if you check so many, the workload will be too much, one person has 20-30 schedules[horizontal ellipsis] I don't know how to check the frequency of some measures[horizontal ellipsis] Anyway, it's all prn[horizontal ellipsis] it also does not have a fixed pattern about how to choose[horizontal ellipsis] (Staff nurse, 9 years)

 

Lack of a standard of practice at the organizational level led to inconsistent system use patterns among nurses, which affected the confidence and motivation of nurses to make SCPs.

 

Because we really don't have a so-called right way. In the end, what kind of thing is right is all based on our own groping, and everyone has a set of ideas for record-keeping; there is no standard. (Staff nurse, 8 years)

 

Moreover, some nursing tasks in our setting could not be properly represented with the standardized interventions recommended by the Nu-CDSS, leading to perplexities among nurses. There was no place for nurses to type in additional interventions by free text in the care planning interface, thus compromising the accuracy of the care plan.

 

You will see a lot of the interventions the Nu-CDSS recommends that do not correspond to our clinical tasks[horizontal ellipsis] We felt that this (nursing) problem should not be solved with these interventions. (Head nurse, 29 years)

 

Gaining New Routines With Care Planning

Before the introduction of the Nu-CDSS, nurses had limited experience in care planning. However, they gradually formed their own record-keeping habits during prolonged use of the system. To tackle the uncertainty during system use, nurses sought to form a unified use pattern within the ward as much as possible by communicating with each other or under the guidance of the head nurse.

 

Just discuss among ourselves, like "Hey, how did you do this?", then everyone did it the same way[horizontal ellipsis] (Staff nurse, 14 years)

 

As nurses have different understandings and sensitivities to nursing diagnoses and interventions because of varying education levels and clinical experience, performance standards on system use are set by management in some wards to standardize the record-keeping pattern, which is also conducive to quality control.

 

I will make some ward-level specifications. For example, if the patient's body temperature is >38[degrees]C, then I clarify to the nurse which nursing interventions this patient should have or which interventions she should choose when the patient is taking oral laxatives. In this way, I try to standardize practices within the ward as much as possible. (Head nurse, 22 years)

 

DICUSSION

Characteristics of Nurses' Care Planning Practices

The results show that many interventions within the action type assessment, such as assess vertigo symptoms, assess medications that increase the risk of fall, and ADL scale, are of high importance but low performance, which means they are not fully documented in the care plan. Our finding is not in line with that of Yang et al39 showing that nursing activities that fall into the action type assessing/monitoring/evaluating/observing accounted for almost half of all interventions that appeared in the SCPs. This may be related to the nursing process-guided workflow embedded in the Nu-CDSS where nurses tend to balance the care plan with other parts of nursing documentation. As these assessments are completed in the assessment stage, when developing care plans, nurses tend to avoid selecting items related to assessment. It is worth noting that not all the interventions can be properly fit into the care plan. Interventions such as monitor BP changes and monitor heart rate/rhythm changes all belong to vital signs and can be documented in specific modules in batches rather than a single patient at a time. When sudden changes in a patient's condition occur, nurses are accustomed to documenting the vital signs and other interventions directly in the progress notes rather than updating the care plan. Therefore, in order to avoid duplication, the nurses include them less frequently in the care plan. These are consistent with a recent Australian study showing that nurses placed more value on the nursing progress notes or comment sheet as a record of nursing action instead of the care plan.18

 

Our study showed the poor correlation between nurse-perceived importance and performance for interventions linked to each nursing diagnosis, with some contents in the care plan being in discordance with actual practice and some activities not adequately documented. This finding reflects the defects in care planning among nurses, such as randomly selecting all the interventions recommended by the Nu-CDSS, likely due to the care planning module within the Nu-CDSS not meeting nurses' expectations to guide clinical practice. Because of poor integration of the SCP with clinical practice, nurses lack the motivation to develop individualized care plans, and care plans are not referred to as a source of information exchange, as demonstrated in the previous studies.14,18 Our study found that only 11 of the 58 nursing interventions have a performance of >=40 of the 400 SCPs we reviewed, indicating the highly homogeneous pattern among care plans. This is perhaps because nurses have formed a habit regarding care planning after routinized system use without adequate consideration of individual needs of each patient. These findings suggest that there is room for adaption of SCPs for it to be successfully integrated with clinical workflow.21 Moreover, effective leadership from nurse administrators is warranted to engage individual nurses with SCP implementation.36,40

 

Controversial Issues With Standardized Care Plans

The restrictive documentation framework under which SCPs are developed may constrain the clinical reasoning of nurses and lead to homogeneity in care planning.10 Nurses tend to blindly select the same content within the drop-down boxes or base their choices on records from previous shifts when updating the care plan without consideration of the current conditions and the individualized needs of patients.11,41 Bruylands and colleagues'42 study showed that the decision support of providing nursing diagnosis recommendations based on nurses' assessment records did not improve the quality of nursing records compared with manual input, indicating that CDSS cannot replace nurses' clinical reasoning at any stage of the nursing process. Clinical decision support-guided documentation has long been criticized as jeopardizing clinicians' professional autonomy with few perceived benefits for experienced nurses.43

 

An inherent shortcoming with SCPs is the lack of expressivity associated with the use of SNLs.44 Despite the broad scope covered by SNLs, they cannot meet the dynamic care needs of patients and nurses still relying on free-texting during record-keeping11 to communicate information in an accurate and understandable manner, which was a common practice in our hospital, indicating the need for continuous refinement and local adaptation of SNLs to meet the practice needs in our setting. Another important finding in our study was nurses' uncertainty about how the care plan should be developed, indicating a need for quality standards across the institution. Ostensen et al15 also found that nurses tend to balance between overview and detail when working with the SCP. Despite extensive studies into quality criteria of nursing documentation and the value of SNLs, no consensus has been reached regarding what to include in the SCP.15 In our study, nurse leaders in pilot wards closely engaged in quality monitoring specific to the care planning practices among nurses, which is imperative to successful implementation of digital health tools in healthcare settings.45 As an imperative part of nursing documentation, how SCP should serve clinical practice warrants further study, and it is important that clear and visible leadership should be in place to guide nurses to use the SCP properly.13

 

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, the Nu-CDSS we investigated is still in pilot use, and its partial implementation may have led to nurses' random use, which influences the measurement of performance of nursing interventions. Second, The IPA was carried out based on the interventions linked to each nursing diagnosis without adequate consideration of the related factors (etiologies) and defining characteristics (signs/symptoms), which also affects the relevance of the corresponding interventions. Finally, research subjects were limited to four medical-surgical wards and may underrepresent the whole picture of how nurses work with SCPs in our institution.

 

CONCLUSION

This study explored how nurses develop care plans in a Nu-CDSS. The results showed that there was a certain degree of difference between the performance and importance of nursing interventions, indicating that nurses' care planning may not reflect their professional judgments. Nurses had been working with the new system for a limited period and had not fully incorporated care planning into their workflow and held negative attitudes toward it. Management has a vital role to play in fostering nurses' clinical thinking inherent in care planning to guide the provision and evaluation of nursing care. The Nu-CDSS also needs to be constantly optimized to adapt to clinical needs to better represent nursing care. Standardized care plans should be remodeled to better integrate with other parts of nursing records and clinical practice, improving the efficiency of documentation and quality of care.

 

References

 

1. Rouleau G, Gagnon MP, Cote J, Payne-Gagnon J, Hudson E, Dubois CA. Impact of information and communication technologies on nursing care: results of an overview of systematic reviews. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2017;19(4): e122. [Context Link]

 

2. Mills S. Electronic health records and use of clinical decision support. Critical Care Nursing Clinics of North America. 2019;31(2): 125-131. [Context Link]

 

3. Muller-Staub M, de Graaf-Waar H, Paans W. An internationally consented standard for nursing process-clinical decision support systems in electronic health records. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing. 2016;34(11): 493-502. [Context Link]

 

4. Ortiz DR, Maia FOM, Ortiz DCF, Peres HHC, Sousa PAF. Computerized clinical decision support system utilization in nursing: a scoping review protocol. JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports. 2017;15(11): 2638-2644. [Context Link]

 

5. Liao MC, Chiu JE, Tsai CM. The effect of implementation of a nursing information system: experiences in a regional teaching Hospital in Taiwan. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing. 2020;38(10): 515-523. [Context Link]

 

6. Huang HY, Lee TT, Hsu TC, Mills ME, Tzeng IS. Evaluation of the pressure injury prevention information system. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing. 2020;38(12): 625-632. [Context Link]

 

7. Toney-Butler TJ, Thayer JM. Nursing process. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing; 2022. Updated July 9, 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK499937/[Context Link]

 

8. Hayrinen K, Lammintakanen J, Saranto K. Evaluation of electronic nursing documentation-nursing process model and standardized terminologies as keys to visible and transparent nursing. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2010;79(8): 554-564. [Context Link]

 

9. De Groot K, Triemstra M, Paans W, Francke AL. Quality criteria, instruments, and requirements for nursing documentation: a systematic review of systematic reviews. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2019;75(7): 1379-1393. [Context Link]

 

10. Lee S, Jeon MY, Kim EO. Implementation of structured documentation and standard nursing statements: perceptions of nurses in acute care settings. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing. 2019;37(5): 266-275. [Context Link]

 

11. Lee MS, Lee S. Implementation of an electronic nursing record for nursing documentation and communication of patient care information in a tertiary teaching hospital. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing. 2020;39(3): 136-144. [Context Link]

 

12. Saranto K, Kinnunen UM, Kivekas E, et al. Impacts of structuring nursing records: a systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences. 2014;28(4): 629-647. [Context Link]

 

13. Vabo G, Slettebo A, Fossum M. Participants' perceptions of an intervention implemented in an action research nursing documentation project. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2017;26(7-8): 983-993. [Context Link]

 

14. Castella-Creus M, Delgado-Hito P, Casanovas-Cuellar C, Tapia-Perez M, Juve-Udina ME. Barriers and facilitators involved in standardised care plan individualisation process in acute hospitalisation wards: a grounded theory approach. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2019;28(23-24): 4606-4620. [Context Link]

 

15. Ostensen E, Hardiker NR, Bragstad LK, Helleso R. Introducing standardised care plans as a new recording tool in municipal health care. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2020;29(17-18): 3286-3297. [Context Link]

 

16. Akhu-Zaheya L, Al-Maaitah R, Bany Hani S. Quality of nursing documentation: paper-based health records versus electronic-based health records. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2018;27(3-4): e578-e589. [Context Link]

 

17. Wang N, Yu P, Hailey D. The quality of paper-based versus electronic nursing care plan in Australian aged care homes: a documentation audit study. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2015;84(8): 561-569. [Context Link]

 

18. Paterson C, Roberts C, Bail K. 'Paper care not patient care': nurse and patient experiences of comprehensive risk assessment and care plan documentation in hospital. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2022;1-16. . [Context Link]

 

19. D'Agostino F, Pancani L, Romero-Sanchez JM, et al. Nurses' beliefs about nursing diagnosis: a study with cluster analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2018;74(6): 1359-1370. [Context Link]

 

20. Reinke LF, Hendricksen M, Lynn J. Care plan standardization for older adults: opportunities for nursing leadership. Journal of Gerontological Nursing. 2018;44(12): 11-16. [Context Link]

 

21. De Groot K, de Veer AJE, Paans W, Francke AL. Use of electronic health records and standardized terminologies: a nationwide survey of nursing staff experiences. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2020;104: 103523. [Context Link]

 

22. Nantschev R, Ammenwerth E. Availability of standardized electronic patient data in nursing: a nationwide survey of Austrian acute care hospitals. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. 2020;272: 233-236. [Context Link]

 

23. Park H, Yu S, Lee SH. Evaluating the correlation between nursing practice and electronic nursing records using importance-performance analysis. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing. 2021;39(9): 492-498. [Context Link]

 

24. Tasew H, Mariye T, Teklay G. Nursing documentation practice and associated factors among nurses in public hospitals, Tigray, Ethiopia. BMC Research Notes. 2019;12(1): 612. [Context Link]

 

25. Sondergaard SF, Lorentzen V, Sorensen EE, Frederiksen K. The documentation practice of perioperative nurses: a literature review. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2017;26(13-14): 1757-1769. [Context Link]

 

26. Saba V, Whittenburg L, Saranto K, Dan Roberts W. Point of care solutions for electronic documentation of nursing practice. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. 2018;250: 230-232. [Context Link]

 

27. Chen Y, Ji YJ, Sun HX, et al. Term structure, code formation and application tools of the Clinical Care Classification System. Chinese Journal of Medical Library and Information Science. 2018;27(2): 75-80. [Context Link]

 

28. Lin M, Chen JL, Kang XF, et al. Establishment and application of Clinical Care Classification System in electronic medical record. Chinese Nursing Management. 2019;19(5): 735-739. [Context Link]

 

29. Tastan S, Linch GC, Keenan GM, et al. Evidence for the existing American Nurses Association-recognized standardized nursing terminologies: a systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2014;51(8): 1160-1170. [Context Link]

 

30. Liu HJ, Mou SY, Luo J, et al. Applicability of Clinical Care Classification System in nursing records of intensive care unit. Journal of Chinese Nursing Research. 2020;34(24): 4436-4440. [Context Link]

 

31. Martilla JA, James JC. Importance-performance analysis. Journal of Marketing. 1997;41:77-79. [Context Link]

 

32. Cohen JF, Coleman E, Kangethe MJ. An importance-performance analysis of hospital information system attributes: a nurses' perspective. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2016;86: 82-90. [Context Link]

 

33. Lu SJ, Kao HO, Chang BL, et al. Identification of quality gaps in healthcare services using the SERVQUAL instrument and importance-performance analysis in medical intensive care: a prospective study at a medical center in Taiwan. BMC Health Services Research. 2020;20(1): 908. [Context Link]

 

34. Aeyels D, Seys D, Sinnaeve PR, et al. Managing in-hospital quality improvement: an importance-performance analysis to set priorities for ST-elevation myocardial infarction care. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing. 2018;17(6): 535-542. [Context Link]

 

35. Kinnaer LM, Nelis M, Van Hecke A, Foulon V. Patient-centered care coordination, education and counseling of patients treated with oral anticancer drugs: an importance-performance analysis. European Journal of Oncology Nursing. 2020;47: 101765. [Context Link]

 

36. Ostensen E, Hardiker NR, Helleso R. Facilitating the implementation of standardized care plans in municipal healthcare. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing. 2021;40(2): 104-112. [Context Link]

 

37. Lee TT. Nurses' perceptions of their documentation experiences in a computerized nursing care planning system. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2006;15(11): 1376-1382. [Context Link]

 

38. Braun V, Clarke V. What can "thematic analysis" offer health and wellbeing researchers?Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2014;9: 26152. [Context Link]

 

39. Yang L, Ji X, Chung P, Cao C, Wu Z. Analysis of the Clinical Care Classification System used in an intensive care unit of a general hospital in China. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing. 2021;39(12): 837-842. [Context Link]

 

40. Ali S, Sieloff CL. Nurse's use of power to standardise nursing terminology in electronic health records. Journal of Nursing Management. 2017;25(5): 346-353. [Context Link]

 

41. Lee TT. Nursing diagnoses: factors affecting their use in charting standardized care plans. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2005;14(5): 640-647. [Context Link]

 

42. Bruylands M, Paans W, Hediger H, Muller-Staub M. Effects on the quality of the nursing care process through an educational program and the use of electronic nursing documentation. International Journal of Nursing Knowledge. 2013;24(3): 163-170. [Context Link]

 

43. Liberati EG, Ruggiero F, Galuppo L, et al. What hinders the uptake of computerized decision support systems in hospitals? A qualitative study and framework for implementation. Implementation Science. 2017;12(1): 113. [Context Link]

 

44. Rosenbloom ST, Denny JC, Xu H, Lorenzi N, Stead WW, Johnson KB. Data from clinical notes: a perspective on the tension between structure and flexible documentation. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2011;18(2): 181-186. [Context Link]

 

45. Bail K, Merrick E, Fox A, et al. Ten statements to support nurse leaders implement e-health tools for nursing work in hospitals: a modified Delphi study. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2021;30(9-10): 1442-1454. [Context Link]