Journal of Medical Systems

, 40:198 | Cite as

The Status of Nursing Documentation in Slovenia: a Survey

  • Uroš Rajkovič
  • Marija Milavec Kapun
  • Dejan Dinevski
  • Vesna Prijatelj
  • Marija Zaletel
  • Olga Šušteršič
Systems-Level Quality Improvement
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Emerging Technologies for Connected Health


Health documentation is a prerequisite for good and sustainable health and social care. It is especially important for patient involvement and their empowerment. A transition from paper to e-documentation together with the electronic patient record should be based on thorough knowledge of the current state of documentation and its usages. The main objective of this paper was to analyse which documents and work methods of documenting processes within nursing are being used within different environments. Furthermore, what are the main reasons for their discrepancies from theoretical approaches and best practices. The analysis is based on a survey carried out on all three levels of healthcare. The survey questionnaire consisted of 12 questions to which responded 286 nursing teams from community health centres, hospitals and retirement homes in Slovenia. The results point to diversity in documenting as well as lack of interoperability. This is reflected in a great number of different documents. All phases of the nursing process were being documented in only 31.8 % of cases. The main reasons for this can be attributed to work organisation, different definitions of data-set requirements and inadequate knowledge by nurses. Survey results pointed out a need for the renewal of nursing documentation towards a more uniform system based on contemporary health technologies.


Documentation Information technology Nursing 



The authors are grateful to the nurses from the Community Health Centre of Ljubljana, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, University Medical Centre Maribor and retirement homes in Ljubljana: Moste-Polje, Šiška and Tabor for their participation in the survey.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that no conflict of interest exists.


This research was financially supported by the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Slovenia, contract number C2711–707,502.

Ethical Approval

This study was not subject to ethical review.


  1. 1.
    Paans, W., Sermeus, W., Nieweg, R.M.B., and van der Schans, C.P., Prevalence of accurate nursing documentation in patient records. J. Adv. Nurs. 66(11):2481–2489, 2010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Saranto, K., Kinnuen, U.M., Kivekas, E., Lappalainen, A.M., Liljamo, P., Rajalahti, E., and Hypponen, H., Im pacts of structuring nursing records: a systematic review. Scand. J. Caring Sci. 28(4):629–647, 2014. doi: 10.1111/scs.12094.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Scruth, E.A., Quality nursing documentation in the medical record. Clinical nurse specialist. 28(6):312–314, 2014. doi: 10.1097/NUR.0000000000000085.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Maust, D., Implementation of an electronic medical record in a health system: lessons learned. J Nurses Staff Dec. 28(1):E11–E15, 2012. doi: 10.1097/NND.0b013e318240a715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sewell, J., Informatics and nursing: opportunities and challenges. Wolter Kluwers, Philadelphia, 2015.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thoroddsen, A., Ehrenberg, A., Sermeus, W., and Saranto, K., A survey of nursing documentation, terminologies and standards in European countries. Nurs Inform. 2012:406, 2012.PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rocha, A., and Rocha, B., Adopting nursing health record standards. Inform. Health Soc. Care. 39(1):1–14, 2014. doi: 10.3109/17538157.2013.827200.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kent, P., and Morrow, K., Better documentation improves patient care. Nurs. Stand. 29(14):44–51, 2014. doi: 10.7748/ns.29.14.44.e9267.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mazlom, S.R., and Rajabpoor, M., Development and assessment of computerized software for nursing process: a step toward promotion of nursing education and care. Iranian Journal of Medical Education. 14(4):312–322, 2014.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dent, M., and Pahor, M., Patient involvement in Europe – a comparative framework. J. Health Organ. Manag. 29(5):546–555, 2015. doi: 10.1108/JHOM-05-2015-0078.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Severinsson, E., and Holm, A.L., Patients’ role in their own safety—a systematic review of patient involvement in safety. Open journal of nursing. 5:642–653, 2015. doi: 10.4236/ojn.2015.57068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sutton, E., Eborall, H., and Martin, G., Patient involvement in patient safety: current experiences, insights from the wider literature, promising opportunities? Public management review. 17(1):72–89, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McCloskey, R., Donovan, C., Stewart, C., and Donovan, A., How registered nurses, licensed practical nurses and resident aides spend time in nursing homes: an observational study. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 52(9):1475–1483, 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.05.007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ranegger, R., Hackl, W.O., and Ammenwerth, E., Implementation of the Austrian nursing minimum data set (NMDS-AT): a feasibility study. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 15(1):75, 2015. doi: 10.1186/s12911-015-0198-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Häyrinen, K., Lammintakanen, J., and Saranto, K., Evaluation of electronic nursing documentation – nursing process model and standardized terminologies as keys to visible and transparent nursing. Int. J. Med. Inform. 79(8):554–564, 2010. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.05.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Munyisia, E.N., Yu, P., and Hailey, D., Does the introduction of an electronic nursing documentation system in a nursing home reduce time on documentation for the nursing staff? Int. J. Med. Inform. 80(11):782–792, 2011. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.08.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Munyisia, E., Yu, P., and Hailey, D., The effect of an electronic health record system on nursing staff time in a nursing home: a longitudinal cohort study. Australasian medical journal. 7(7):285–293, 2014. doi: 10.4066/AMJ.2014.2072.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lear CL, Walters C Use of electronic nurse reminders to improve documentation: a process improvement for a comprehensive stroke center. CIN [epub ahead of print], 2015Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Remus, S., Kennedy, M.A., Lucas, B.M., and Forbes, T., Nursing documentation in digital solutions. In: Hannah, K.J., Hussey, P., Kennedy, M.A., and Ball, M.J. (Eds.), Introduction to nursing informatics. Springer-Verlag, London, pp. 145–176, 2014.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lakbala, P., and Dindarloo, K., Physicians’ perception and attitude toward electronic medica record. Springerplus. 3(63), 2014. doi: 10.1186/2193-1801-3-63.
  21. 21.
    Ranegger, R., Hackl, W.O., and Ammenwerth, E., Development of the Austrian nursing minimum data set (nmds-at): the third delphi round, a quantitative online survey. In: Hayn, D., Schreier, G., Ammenwerth, E., and Hoerbst, A. (Eds.), eHealth2015 – health informatics meets eHealth. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp. 73–80, 2015.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    McWay, D.C., Legal and ethical aspects of health information management, 4th edn. Delmar Cengage Learning, Hampshire, 2014.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gawande, A., The checklist manifesto: how to get things right. Picador, London, 2011.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    McGonigle, D., and Mastrian, K.G., Nursing informatics and the foundation of knowledge. Jones & Bartlett Learning, Boston, 2014.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Benedik, P., Rajkovič, U., and Šušteršič, O., Toward the design of a nursing ontology system. Comput. Inform. Nurs. 32(12):580–588, 2014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Uroš Rajkovič
    • 1
  • Marija Milavec Kapun
    • 2
  • Dejan Dinevski
    • 3
  • Vesna Prijatelj
    • 4
  • Marija Zaletel
    • 2
  • Olga Šušteršič
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Organizational SciencesUniversity of MariborKranjSlovenia
  2. 2.Faculty of Health SciencesUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia
  3. 3.Faculty of MedicineUniversity of MariborMariborSlovenia
  4. 4.University Medical Centre LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations