Modelling Information Needs and Sources in a COVID-19 Designated Hospital.

COVID-19 remains an important focus of study in the field of public health informatics. COVID-19 designated hospitals have played an important role in the management of patients affected by the disease. In this paper we describe our modelling of the needs and sources of information for infectious disease practitioners and hospital administrators used to manage a COVID-19 outbreak. Infectious disease practitioner and hospital administrator stakeholders were interviewed to learn about their information needs and where they obtained their information. Stakeholder interview data were transcribed and coded to extract use case information. The findings indicate that participants used many and varied sources of information in the management of COVID-19. The use of multiple, differing sources of data led to considerable effort. In modelling participants' activities, we identified potential subsystems that could be used as a basis for developing an information system specific to the public health needs of hospitals providing care to COVID-19 patients.

Comparing Responses to COVID-19 Across Institutions: Conceptualization of an Emergency Response Maturity Model.

The impact of Covid-19 on hospitals was profound, with many lower-resourced hospitals' information technology resources inadequate to efficiently meet the new needs. We interviewed 52 personnel at all levels in two New York City hospitals to understand their issues in emergency response. The large differences in IT resources show the need for a schema to classify hospital IT readiness for emergency response. Here we propose a set of concepts and model, inspired by the Health Information Management Systems Society (HIMSS) maturity model. The schema is designed to permit evaluation of hospital IT emergency readiness, permitting remediation of IT resources where necessary.

Data Science Implementation Trends in Nursing Practice: A Review of the 2021 Literature.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this work was to provide a review of the implementation of data science driven applications focused on structural or outcome-related nurse sensitive indicators in the literature in 2021. By conducting this review, we aim to inform readers of on trends in the nursing indicators being addressed, the patient populations and settings of focus, and lessons and challenges identified during the implementation of these tools. METHODS: We conducted a rigorous descriptive review of the literature to identify relevant research published in 2021. We extracted data on model development, implementation-related; lessons learned and challenges and stakeholder involvement. We also assessed whether reports of data science application implementations currently follow the guidelines of the Developmental and Exploratory Clinical Investigations of DEcision support systems driven by AI (DECIDE-AI) framework. RESULTS: Of 4,943 articles found in PubMed (NLM) and CINAHL (EBSCOhost), 11 were included in the final review and data extraction. Systems leveraging data science were developed for adult patient populations and were primarily deployed in hospital settings. The clinical domains targeted included mortality/deterioration, utilization/resource allocation and hospital acquired infections/COVID-19. The composition of development teams and types of stakeholders involved varied. Research teams more frequently reported on implementation methods than implementation results. Most studies provided lessons learned that could help inform future implementations of data science systems in healthcare. CONCLUSIONS: In 2021, very few studies report on the implementation of data science driven applications focused on structural- or outcome-related nurse sensitive indicators. This gap in the sharing of implementation strategies needs to be addressed in order for these systems to be successfully adopted in health care settings.

Feasibility of nasal bridge pressure injury prevention using a protective dressing and the Halyard Fluidshield® N95 mask in a COVID-positive environment.

The purpose of this study was to prevent nasal bridge pressure injury among fit-tested employees, secondary to long-term wear of the N95 mask during working hours. A prospective, single-blinded, experimental cohort design. Participants were enrolled using the convenience sampling methods and randomisation was utilised for group assignment. Eligibility was determined by a COVID Anxiety Scale score and non-COVID clinical assignment. Participants with a history of previous skin injury or related condition were excluded. The experimental group was assigned Mepilex Lite® and the control group used Band- Aid®. Formal skin evaluations were done by Nurse Specialists who are certified in wound and ostomy care by the Wound, Ostomy, Continence, Nursing Certification Board (WOCNCB®). Fit test logs were provided to participants to measure subjective user feedback regarding mask fit and level of comfort. The results of this feasibility trial are promising in supporting the use of a thin polyurethane foam dressing as a safe and effective dressing to apply beneath the N95 mask. Additional research is needed to validate results due to limited data on efficacy and safety of the various barrier dressings as a potential intervention to prevent skin breakdown to the nasal bridge.

Clinician and Health Care Leaders' Experiences with-and Perceptions of-COVID-19 Documentation Reduction Policies and Practices.

BACKGROUND: Substantial strategies to reduce clinical documentation were implemented by health care systems throughout the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic at national and local levels. This natural experiment provides an opportunity to study the impact of documentation reduction strategies on documentation burden among clinicians and other health professionals in the United States. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess clinicians' and other health care leaders' experiences with and perceptions of COVID-19 documentation reduction strategies and identify which implemented strategies should be prioritized and remain permanent post-pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a national survey of clinicians and health care leaders to understand COVID-19 documentation reduction strategies implemented during the pandemic using snowball sampling through professional networks, listservs, and social media. We developed and validated a 19-item survey leveraging existing post-COVID-19 policy and practice recommendations proposed by Sinsky and Linzer. Participants rated reduction strategies for impact on documentation burden on a scale of 0 to 100. Free-text responses were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 351 surveys initiated, 193 (55%) were complete. Most participants were informaticians and/or clinicians and worked for a health system or in academia. A majority experienced telehealth expansion (81.9%) during the pandemic, which participants also rated as highly impactful (60.1-61.5) and preferred that it remain (90.5%). Implemented at lower proportions, documenting only pertinent positives to reduce note bloat (66.1 ± 28.3), changing compliance rules and performance metrics to eliminate those without evidence of net benefit (65.7 ± 26.3), and electronic health record (EHR) optimization sprints (64.3 ± 26.9) received the highest impact scores compared with other strategies presented; support for these strategies widely ranged (49.7-63.7%). CONCLUSION: The results of this survey suggest there are many perceived sources of and solutions for documentation burden. Within strategies, we found considerable support for telehealth, documenting pertinent positives, and changing compliance rules. We also found substantial variation in the experience of documentation burden among participants.

Measurement of clinical documentation burden among physicians and nurses using electronic health records: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: . OBJECTIVE: Electronic health records (EHRs) are linked with documentation burden resulting in clinician burnout. While clear classifications and validated measures of burnout exist, documentation burden remains ill-defined and inconsistently measured. We aim to conduct a scoping review focused on identifying approaches to documentation burden measurement and their characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Extension for Scoping Reviews (ScR) guidelines, we conducted a scoping review assessing MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL from inception to April 2020 for studies investigating documentation burden among physicians and nurses in ambulatory or inpatient settings. Two reviewers evaluated each potentially relevant study for inclusion/exclusion criteria. RESULTS: Of the 3482 articles retrieved, 35 studies met inclusion criteria. We identified 15 measurement characteristics, including 7 effort constructs: EHR usage and workload, clinical documentation/review, EHR work after hours and remotely, administrative tasks, cognitively cumbersome work, fragmentation of workflow, and patient interaction. We uncovered 4 time constructs: average time, proportion of time, timeliness of completion, activity rate, and 11 units of analysis. Only 45.0% of studies assessed the impact of EHRs on clinicians and/or patients and 40.0% mentioned clinician burnout. DISCUSSION: Standard and validated measures of documentation burden are lacking. While time and effort were the core concepts measured, there appears to be no consensus on the best approach nor degree of rigor to study documentation burden. CONCLUSION: Further research is needed to reliably operationalize the concept of documentation burden, explore best practices for measurement, and standardize its use.