Healthc Inform Res.  2014 Oct;20(4):249-257. 10.4258/hir.2014.20.4.249.

Effectiveness of Nursing Management Information Systems: A Systematic Review

• Choi M
• Yang YL
• Lee SM

• KMID: 2166799
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2014.20.4.249

Abstract

OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this study was to review evaluation studies of nursing management information systems (NMISs) and their outcome measures to examine system effectiveness.
METHODS
For the systematic review, a literature search of the PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted to retrieve original articles published between 1970 and 2014. Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms included informatics, medical informatics, nursing informatics, medical informatics application, and management information systems for information systems and evaluation studies and nursing evaluation research for evaluation research. Additionally, manag* and admin*, and nurs* were combined. Title, abstract, and full-text reviews were completed by two reviewers. And then, year, author, type of management system, study purpose, study design, data source, system users, study subjects, and outcomes were extracted from the selected articles. The quality and risk of bias of the studies that were finally selected were assessed with the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Non-randomized Studies (RoBANS) criteria.
RESULTS
Out of the 2,257 retrieved articles, a total of six articles were selected. These included two scheduling programs, two nursing cost-related programs, and two patient care management programs. For the outcome measurements, usefulness, time saving, satisfaction, cost, attitude, usability, data quality/completeness/accuracy, and personnel work patterns were included. User satisfaction, time saving, and usefulness mostly showed positive findings.
CONCLUSIONS
The study results suggest that NMISs were effective in time saving and useful in nursing care. Because there was a lack of quality in the reviewed studies, well-designed research, such as randomized controlled trials, should be conducted to more objectively evaluate the effectiveness of NMISs.

Keyword

Information Systems; Nursing; Management Information Systems; Evaluation Studies; Review

MeSH Terms

Bias (Epidemiology)
Evaluation Studies as Topic
Informatics
Information Storage and Retrieval
Information Systems
Management Information Systems*
Medical Informatics
Medical Subject Headings
Nursing Care
Nursing Evaluation Research
Nursing Informatics
Nursing*
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Patient Care Management

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Literature searching flow. NMIS: nursing management information system.

Reference

1. Tillett J, Senger P. Determining the value of nursing care. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2011; 25(1):6–7.

2. Skytt B, Ljunggren B, Sjoden PO, Carlsson M. The roles of the first-line nurse manager: perceptions from four perspectives. J Nurs Manag. 2008; 16(8):1012–1020.

3. Surakka T. The nurse manager's work in the hospital environment during the 1990s and 2000s: responsibility, accountability and expertise in nursing leadership. J Nurs Manag. 2008; 16(5):525–534.

4. Junttila K, Meretoja R, Seppala A, Tolppanen EM, Ala-Nikkola T, Silvennoinen L. Data warehouse approach to nursing management. J Nurs Manag. 2007; 15(2):155–161.

5. Lammintakanen J, Saranto K, Kivinen T. Use of electronic information systems in nursing management. Int J Med Inform. 2010; 79(5):324–331.

6. Ruland CM, Ravn IH. Usefulness and effects on costs and staff management of a nursing resource management information system. J Nurs Manag. 2003; 11(3):208–215.

7. Friedman CP, Wyatt J. Evaluation methods in medical informatics. 2nd ed. New York (NY): Springer;2006.

8. Burkle T, Ammenwerth E, Prokosch HU, Dudeck J. Evaluation of clinical information systems. What can be evaluated and what cannot? J Eval Clin Pract. 2001; 7(4):373–385.

9. Hlusko DL, Weatherly KS, Franklin KG, Wallace S, Williamson S. Computerization of a nursing financial management system using continuous quality improvement as a framework. Comput Nurs. 1994; 12(4):193–200.

10. Heslop L, Plummer V. Nurse staff allocation by nurse patient ratio vs. a computerized nurse dependency management system: a comparative cost analysis of Australian and New Zealand hospitals. Nurs Econ. 2012; 30(6):347–355.

11. Bailyn L, Collins R, Song Y. Self-scheduling for hospital nurses: an attempt and its difficulties. J Nurs Manag. 2007; 15(1):72–77.

12. Madrid EM. Perioperative system design and evaluation. Semin Perioper Nurs. 1997; 6(2):94–101.

13. Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service. DAMI & RoBANS version 2.0 [Internet]. Seoul: Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service;2013. cited at 2014 May 15. Available from: http://www.hira.or.kr/dummy.do?pgmid=HIRAA030067010000&cmsurl=/cms/law/03/08/03/1319759_25126.html&subject=DAMI%20&%20RoBANS%20version%202.0%20by%20HIRA#none.

14. Kaplan B. Evaluating informatics applications: some alternative approaches: theory, social interactionism, and call for methodological pluralism. Int J Med Inform. 2001; 64(1):39–56.

15. Oroviogoicoechea C, Elliott B, Watson R. Review: evaluating information systems in nursing. J Clin Nurs. 2008; 17(5):567–575.

16. Currie LM. Evaluation frameworks for nursing informatics. Int J Med Inform. 2005; 74(11-12):908–916.

17. Ammenwerth E, Brender J, Nykanen P, Prokosch HU, Rigby M, Talmon J, et al. Visions and strategies to improve evaluation of health information systems. Reflections and lessons based on the HIS-EVAL workshop in Innsbruck. Int J Med Inform. 2004; 73(6):479–491.

18. Ammenwerth E, de Keizer N. An inventory of evaluation studies of information technology in health care trends in evaluation research 1982-2002. Methods Inf Med. 2005; 44(1):44–56.

19. Van Der Meijden MJ, Tange HJ, Troost J, Hasman A. Determinants of success of inpatient clinical information systems: a literature review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003; 10(3):235–243.

20. Friedman CP, Abbas UL. Is medical informatics a mature science? A review of measurement practice in outcome studies of clinical systems. Int J Med Inform. 2003; 69(2-3):261–272.

21. Nahm ES, Vaydia V, Ho D, Scharf B, Seagull J. Outcomes assessment of clinical information system implementation: a practical guide. Nurs Outlook. 2007; 55(6):282–288.