Validity and reliability of a new measure of nursing experience with unintended consequences of electronic health records

CIN - Computers Informatics Nursing

Volumn 34, Issue 10, 2016, Pages 436-447

  Gephart, Sheila M ^a   Bristol, Alycia A ^a   Dye, Judy L ^a   Finley, Brooke A ^a   Carrington, Jane M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

Author keywords

Barrier; Electronic health record; Electronic medical record; Measurement; Nursing; Nursing informatics; Patient safety; Professional practice environment; Psychometric analysis; Unintended consequences; Workaround

Indexed keywords

CONSTRUCT VALIDITY; CONTENT VALIDITY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CONVERGENT VALIDITY; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD; EMERGENCY CARE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENT VALIDATION; LEADERSHIP; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NURSE; NURSING INFORMATICS; OBLIQUE ROTATION; PATIENT SAFETY; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; QUANTITATIVE STUDY; QUESTIONNAIRE; TEST RETEST RELIABILITY; WORKFLOW; WORKLOAD; ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NURSING PROCESS; PSYCHOMETRY; REPRODUCIBILITY; UTILIZATION; VALIDATION STUDY;

ADULT; AGED; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NURSING INFORMATICS; NURSING PROCESS; PATIENT SAFETY; PSYCHOMETRICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; WORKFLOW; WORKLOAD;

EID: 84983349240     PISSN: 15382931     EISSN: 15389774     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/CIN.0000000000000285     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Ash JS, Sittig DF, Campbell EM, Guappone KP, Dykstra RH. Some unintended consequences of clinical decision support systems. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2007: 26-30.
2. Ash JS, Berg M, Coiera E. Some unintended consequences of information technology in health care: the nature of patient care information system-related errors. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004;11: 104-112.
3. Gephart S, Carrington JM, Finley B. A systematic review of nurses' experiences with unintended consequences when using the electronic health record. Nurs Adm Q. 2015;39(4): 345-356.
4. Harrison MI, Koppel R, Bar-Lev S. Unintended consequences of information technologies in health care-an interactive sociotechnical analysis. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14(5): 542-549.
5. U.S. Department of Labor. Occupational employment and wages, May 2014: 29-1141 registered nurses. 2014. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes291141.htm#nat. Accessed September 20, 2015.
6. CMS. Unique count of providers by state for eligible providers and hospitals paid by the EHR incentive program, January 2011-July 2015. 2015. https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/Downloads/July2015- UniqueCountofProvidersbyStates.pdf. Accessed September 21, 2015.
7. Schoville RR. Work-arounds and artifacts during transition to a computer physician order entry: what they are and what they mean. J Nurs Care Qual. 2009;24(4): 316-324.
8. Carrington JM, Effken JA. Strengths and limitations of the electronic health record for documenting clinical events. Comput Inform Nurs. 2011;29(6): 360-367.
9. Collins SA, Vawdrey DK. "Reading between the lines" of flow sheet data: nurses' optional documentation associated with cardiac arrest outcomes. Appl Nurs Res. 2012;25(4): 251-257.
10. Stevenson JE, Nilsson G. Nurses' perceptions of an electronic patient record from a patient safety perspective: a qualitative study. J Adv Nurs. 2012; 68(3): 667-676.
11. Sockolow PS, Rogers M, Bowles KH, Hand KE, George J. Challenges and facilitators to nurse use of a guideline-based nursing information system: recommendations for nurse executives. Appl Nurs Res. 2014;27(1): 25-32.
12. Carrington JM. Development of a conceptual framework to guide a program of research exploring nurse-to-nurse communication. Comput Inform Nurs. 2012;30(6): 293-299.
13. Jones SS, Koppel R, Ridgely MS, Palen TE, Wu S, Harrison MI. Guide to Reducing Unintended Consequences of Electronic Health Records. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2011.
14. Carrington JM, Gephart SM, Verran JA, Finley BA. Development of an instrument to measure the unintended consequences of EHRs. West J Nurs Res. 2015;37(7): 842-858.
15. Carrington JM, Effken JA. Strengths and limitations of the electronic health record for documenting clinical events. Comput Inform Nurs. 2011;29(6): 360-367.
16. Ash JS, Sittig DF, Dykstra R, Campbell E, Guappone K. The unintended consequences of computerized provider order entry: findings from a mixed methods exploration. Int J Med Inform. 2009;78(suppl 1): 69-76.
17. Erickson JI, Duffy ME, Ditomassi M, Jones D. Psychometric evaluation of the Revised Professional Practice Environment (RPPE) scale. J Nurs Adm. 2009;39(5): 236-243.
18. ANC. Magnet Model. N.D. http://www.nursecredentialing.org/magnet/programoverview/new-magnet-model. Accessed January 29, 2016.
19. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC; : National Academies Press; 2001.
20. Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res. 1986;35(6): 382-386.
21. Tinsley HE, Tinsley DJ. Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. J Couns Psychol. 1987;34(4): 414.
22. Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT, MacCallum RC, Strahan EJ. Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol Methods. 1999;4(3): 272.
23. Field A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. Los Angeles, CA: Sage; 2013.
24. Yong AG, Pearce S. A beginner's guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol. 2013;9(2): 79-94.
25. Halbesleben JR, Rathert C, Bennett SF. Measuring nursing workarounds: tests of the reliability and validity of a tool. J Nurs Adm. 2013;43(1): 50-55.
26. Collins SA, Fred M, Wilcox L, Vawdrey DK. Workarounds used by nurses to overcome design constraints of electronic health records. NI 2012. 2012;2012: 93.