Background The need for and usage of electronic patient records within hospitals has steadily increased over the last decade for economic reasons as well as the proceeding digitalization. While there are numerous benefits from this system, the potential risks of using electronic patient records for hospitals, patients and healthcare professionals must also be discussed. There is a lack in research, particularly regarding effects on healthcare professionals and their daily work in health services. The study eCoCo aims to gain insight into changes in interprofessional collaboration and clinical workflows resulting from introducing electronic patient records. Methods eCoCo is a multi-center case study integrating mixed methods from qualitative and quantitative social research. The case studies include three hospitals that undergo the process of introducing electronic patient records. Data are collected before and after the introduction of electronic patient records using participant observation, interviews, focus groups, time measurement, patient and employee questionnaires and a questionnaire to measure the level of digitalization. Furthermore, documents (patient records) as well as structural and administrative data are gathered. To analyze the interprofessional collaboration qualitative network analyses, reconstructive-hermeneutic analyses and document analyses are conducted. The workflow analyses, patient and employee assessment analyses and classification within the clinical adoption meta-model are conducted to provide insights into clinical workflows. Discussion This study will be the first to investigate the effects of introducing electronic patient records on interprofessional collaboration and clinical workflows from the perspective of healthcare professionals. Thereby, it will consider patients’ safety, legal and ethical concerns and quality of care. The results will help to understand the organization and thereby improve the performance of health services working with electronic patient records. Trial registration The study was registered at the German clinical trials register (DRKS00023343, Pre-Results) on November 17, 2020.

No abstract

Background: Most randomised controlled trials on advance care planning were conducted in people with advanced, life-limiting illnesses or in institutional settings. There are few studies on its effect in older people living in the community. Aim: To determine the effects of advance care planning in older community dwelling people. Design: The STADPLAN study was a cluster-randomised trial with 12 months follow-up. The complex intervention comprised a 2-days training for nurse facilitators that delivered a formal advance care planning counselling and a written information brochure. Patients in the control group received optimised usual care, that is, provision of a short information brochure. Setting/participants: Home care services in three regions of Germany were randomised using concealed allocation. Care dependent clients of participating home care services, aged 60 years or older, and rated to have a life-expectancy of at least 4 weeks were included. Primary outcome was active participation in care at 12 months, assessed by blinded investigators using the Patient Activation Measure (PAM-13). Results: Twenty-seven home care services and 380 patients took part. Three hundred seventy-three patients were included in the primary analysis ( n = 206 in the intervention and n = 167 in the control group). There was no statistically significant difference between the intervention and control group with regard to the PAM-13 after 12 months (75.7 vs 78.4; p = 0.13). No differences in quality of life, anxiety and depression, advance care planning engagement, and in proportion of participants with advance directives were found between groups. Conclusions: The intervention showed no relevant effects on patient activation or quality of life in community dwelling older persons, possibly indicating the need for more tailored interventions. However, results are limited by a lack of statistical power. Trial registration: German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00016886

The major impact on healthcare through the ongoing digital transformation and new technologies results in opportunities for improving quality of care. Electronic patient records (EPR) are a substantial part in this transformation, even though their influence on documentation remains often unclear. This review aims to answer the question of which effect the introduction of the EPR has on the documentation proper in hospitals. To do this, studies are reviewed that analyze the documentation itself, rather than merely conducting interviews or surveys about it. Several databases were searched in this systematic review (PubMed including PubMed, PubMed Central and Medline; PDQ Evidence; Web of Science Core Collection; CINHAL). To be included, studies needed to analyze written documentation and empirical data, be in either German or English language, published between 2010 and 2020, conducted in a hospital setting, focused on transition from paper-based to electronic patient records, and peer reviewed. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies were included. Studies were independently screened for inclusion by two researchers in three stages (title, abstract, full text) and, in case of disagreement, discussed with a third person from the research team until consensus was reached. The main outcome assessed was whether the studies indicated a negative or positive effect on documentation (e.g. changing the completeness of documentation) by introducing an EPR. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess the individual risk of bias in the included studies. Overall, 264 studies were found. Of these, 17 met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Of all included studies, 11 of 17 proved a positive effect of the introduction of the EPR on documentation such as an improved completeness or guideline adherence of the documentation. Six of 17 showed a mixed effect with positive and negative or no changes. No study showed an exclusively negative effect. Most studies found a positive effect of EPR introduction on documentation. However, it is difficult to draw specific conclusions about how the EPR affects or does not affect documentation since the included studies examined a variety of outcomes. As a result, various scenarios are conceivable with higher or reduced burden for practitioners. Additionally, the impact on treatment remains unclear.

No abstract