Documentation in the Health Record for Vascular Access

Establishes the standards, requirements, and minimum data elements for clinical documentation of all vascular access events—from insertion through removal—in the electronic health record, including insertion documentation, ongoing assessment, medication administration, and the integration of EHR clinical decision support tools.

policies•Jan 2026•Documentation

Documentation in the Health Record for Vascular Access Policy

1. Policy Statement

It is the policy of this organization that every vascular access event—from device insertion through ongoing assessment, maintenance, medication administration, and device removal—shall be accurately, completely, and timely documented in the patient’s electronic health record (EHR) using standardized formats that enable continuity of care, legal defensibility, quality improvement data extraction, and regulatory compliance.[1],3,25 The health record serves as the legal and clinical proof of care rendered.[3] Any vascular access assessment, intervention, or clinical decision that is not documented is legally considered not to have occurred.[3]

2. Purpose

This policy exists to:

  • Establish comprehensive documentation as a non-negotiable standard of vascular access practice, recognizing that the health record is the primary legal defense against claims of negligence and the primary data source for quality improvement.[1],3
  • Define the minimum data elements that must be captured for every vascular access insertion, ongoing assessment, maintenance activity, medication administration, and device removal.[25],5
  • Standardize the documentation format to ensure consistency across clinicians, units, and care settings, enabling meaningful data aggregation and comparison.[31],28,47
  • Mandate the use of EHR clinical decision support (CDS) tools—such as hard stops for line necessity and automated alerts for dressing changes—to improve compliance with vascular access safety protocols.[4],38,40
  • Ensure that documentation supports seamless continuity of care across shifts, transfers, and care transitions.[2],25

3. Scope

This policy applies to:

  • All licensed clinical personnel who document vascular access care in the patient’s health record, including RNs, LPN/LVNs, APRNs, Physicians, PAs, Vascular Access Specialists, and any other authorized documenters.
  • All vascular access device types: peripheral IV catheters, midline catheters, PICCs, tunneled and non-tunneled central venous catheters, implanted ports, and intraosseous devices.
  • All vascular access activities, including: insertion, site assessment, dressing changes, catheter flushing and locking, blood specimen collection, medication and infusion administration, complication identification and management, patient education, line necessity review, and device removal.
  • All clinical settings within the organization.[34]
  • The Health Information Technology (HIT) department insofar as it is responsible for the design, maintenance, and optimization of EHR vascular access documentation templates and clinical decision support tools.

4. Policy Requirements

4.1 General Documentation Standards

4.1.1 Accuracy. All documentation shall be factual, objective, and based on the clinician’s direct observation, assessment findings, and clinical judgment.[1],30 Subjective language, speculation, and unsupported conclusions shall be avoided. The clinician shall document what was seen, heard, done, and communicated. The accuracy of documented information directly affects clinical decision-making—inaccurate recording of medication administration times, for example, can lead to dosing errors and patient harm.[20],35

4.1.2 Timeliness. Documentation shall be completed as close to the time of the event as possible.[2],20 The following timeliness standards apply:

  • Routine site assessments and maintenance activities: documented within one (1) hour of the activity.
  • Insertion and removal procedures: documented immediately upon completion, and no later than the end of the clinician’s shift.
  • Urgent or emergent events (e.g., catheter-related bloodstream infection, air embolism, extravasation, accidental dislodgment): documented as soon as the patient is stabilized and safe, and no later than two (2) hours after the event.
  • Late entries: If documentation cannot be completed within the required timeframe, a late entry shall be made with the actual date and time of the entry, the date and time of the event being documented, and the reason for the delay.

4.1.3 Standardized Format. The organization shall maintain standardized EHR documentation templates for all vascular access activities.[31],28,47 Clinicians shall use these templates to ensure that all required data elements are captured in discrete, reportable fields (rather than unstructured free text alone) to enable data extraction for quality improvement and surveillance.[31],28,41

4.1.4 Prohibition on Pre-Documentation. Clinicians shall not document an assessment or intervention before it has been performed.[32] Pre-documentation of future care activities is prohibited. The practice of copying forward prior assessments without real-time verification poses significant patient safety risks and is strictly prohibited.[32],29

4.1.5 Corrections and Amendments. Errors in the health record shall be corrected in accordance with the organization’s Health Information Management policy.[32] Under no circumstances shall documentation be deleted, altered, or backdated to conceal an error or omission.[29]

4.2 Insertion Documentation

4.2.1 Every vascular access device insertion shall be documented with the following minimum data elements:[6],7,12,25

  • Date and time of the procedure.
  • Name and credentials of the inserting clinician.[6]
  • Type of vascular access device inserted (e.g., 20G short peripheral catheter, 5Fr dual-lumen PICC, 7Fr triple-lumen non-tunneled CVC).
  • Manufacturer and lot number of the device (if applicable and available).
  • Anatomical insertion site (specific location, not just “right arm”) and laterality (right/left).[12]
  • Vein used for access (e.g., right basilic vein, left cephalic vein, right internal jugular vein).
  • Number of insertion attempts, including any failed attempts and the sites attempted.[12]
  • Visualization or guidance technologies used during insertion (e.g., ultrasound, near-infrared light, fluoroscopy, ACG-guided tip confirmation).[7]
  • Catheter length: total catheter length, length inserted (internal), and external length from the insertion site to the hub.[7]
  • For central venous access devices: catheter tip location and the method used to confirm tip position (e.g., chest X-ray, intracavitary ECG, fluoroscopy).[7]
  • Skin antiseptic agent used and application method.[8]
  • Local anesthetic used (if any), agent, and dose.
  • Type of dressing and securement device applied.[25]
  • Patient tolerance of the procedure: pain level, anxiety, and any adverse events during the procedure.
  • Post-insertion assessment findings: site appearance, patency (flush and blood return), and distal circulation.[5]
  • Presence and quality of informed consent documentation (for procedures requiring formal written consent).[25]

Checklist-based documentation approaches for central line insertions have been shown to improve the quality and completeness of recorded data and to reduce CLABSI rates through standardized practice prompting.[10],11

4.3 Ongoing Assessment and Maintenance Documentation

4.3.1 Site Condition. Each site assessment shall document the visual and palpable findings, including but not limited to: presence or absence of erythema, edema, induration, warmth, tenderness, drainage (type and amount), ecchymosis, and skin integrity around the dressing margins.[5],13,26 Findings shall be described using objective, measurable terms (e.g., “2 cm area of erythema surrounding the insertion site”) and, where applicable, graded using the organization’s adopted phlebitis or infiltration scale.[5],19 Audits of real-world practice consistently reveal deficiencies in site assessment documentation, underscoring the importance of standardized templates and periodic compliance review.[13],14

4.3.2 Device Patency. Each assessment shall document: confirmation of blood return (present, absent, or sluggish) and the ease or difficulty of flushing (flushed without resistance, flushed with moderate resistance, unable to flush).[26],15 Any change from the previous assessment shall trigger immediate clinical evaluation and documentation of the findings and interventions.[26]

4.3.3 Dressing and Securement. Documentation shall include: dressing type, integrity status (intact/non-intact), cleanliness (clean/soiled), adherence (adherent/lifting), the date of the current dressing application, and the date of the next scheduled change.[25] Any unscheduled dressing change shall include the reason for the change.

4.3.4 Line Necessity. For all central vascular access devices, the responsible clinician shall document daily whether the central line continues to be clinically necessary.[9],8,16 The documentation shall include the specific clinical indication supporting continued use (e.g., “vesicant chemotherapy requiring central access,” “no peripheral access obtainable,” “TPN administration”).[9],8 Structured daily line necessity review prompts delivered through the EHR have demonstrated measurable reductions in unnecessary central line dwell days and associated CLABSI risk.[9],18 If the device is no longer necessary, the clinician shall document initiation of the removal process.[16]

4.4 Medication and Infusion Administration Documentation

4.4.1 Every medication or infusion administered through a vascular access device shall be documented with: the drug name, dose, concentration, and diluent (if applicable); the route (specific lumen if multi-lumen device); the rate of infusion and the method of administration (gravity, electronic infusion pump, syringe pump); the start and stop times of the infusion;[2],20 use of Dose Error Reduction System (DERS) or smart pump drug library (documented as “administered within DERS” or, if overridden, the reason for override documented);[21],22,23,24 barcode medication administration (BCMA) scanning compliance (scanned successfully, or reason for bypass);[24] and any patient observations during and after administration, including adverse reactions, signs of extravasation, or infusion-related symptoms.[27]

Smart pump–EHR interoperability, which enables automated bi-directional transfer of infusion data between the pump and the patient record, significantly reduces manual transcription errors, improves documentation completeness, and generates analyzable safety data for quality improvement.[21],22,23

4.4.2 Override and Alert Documentation. Any smart pump DERS override or BCMA bypass shall be documented with the specific clinical rationale for the override.[21],23,24 Patterns of overrides shall be reported to the Medication Safety Committee per the Quality Improvement Policy (POL-008).[24]

4.5 Removal Documentation

4.5.1 Every vascular access device removal shall be documented with: the date and time of removal; the name and credentials of the clinician performing the removal; the reason for removal (therapy complete, complication, patient request, line no longer necessary, device malfunction);[16] the catheter length upon removal, compared to the documented insertion length, to verify that the entire catheter was removed intact;[25] visual inspection findings of the catheter tip (intact, damaged, or any concern for retained fragment); the appearance of the insertion site post-removal (presence or absence of bleeding, drainage, erythema); post-removal site care applied (e.g., occlusive dressing, hemostatic agent); and patient tolerance of the procedure.

4.5.2 If the catheter tip is not intact upon removal or if there is any suspicion of a retained catheter fragment, the clinician shall immediately notify the physician, document the findings, and initiate the organization’s Retained Catheter Fragment Protocol.

4.6 Electronic Health Record Integration and Clinical Decision Support

4.6.1 The organization shall implement and maintain EHR clinical decision support (CDS) tools that enhance vascular access safety and compliance,[4],38,39 including: automated alerts for overdue site assessments based on the assessment intervals defined in organizational policy;[5],17 automated alerts for overdue dressing changes;[25] daily line necessity reminders or “hard stops” that require completion before other CVAD-related documentation can be finalized;[9],11,39 best practice alerts (BPAs) triggered by clinical conditions that affect vascular access management (e.g., alert when a vesicant medication is ordered to confirm appropriate access type);[40],37 and insertion order sets that pre-populate required documentation fields and guide evidence-based device selection.[10],11

EHR-based surveillance and real-time analytics have demonstrated the capacity to identify safety signals, detect early indicators of device-related complications, and drive targeted quality improvement interventions.[36],41 Electronic nursing documentation interventions, including structured templates and CDS alerts, have been associated with measurable improvements in documentation completeness and reductions in hospital-acquired complications.[38],42

4.6.2 The VAGC shall collaborate with HIT to ensure that documentation templates are optimized for clinician workflow efficiency while capturing all required discrete data elements,[46],45,33 and shall conduct at minimum an annual review of EHR vascular access templates for accuracy, completeness, and usability.[44],45 EHR usability has been directly associated with nurse and patient outcomes; systems perceived as burdensome or inefficient have been linked to documentation workarounds and care omissions.[46],29,43 Innovations such as mobile point-of-care documentation applications, speech recognition technology, and patient-reported outcome integration via SMS messaging offer promising strategies for improving documentation completeness and enabling remote monitoring within the EHR.[33],35,48

Standardized nursing terminologies within EHR documentation systems support consistent data capture, meaningful benchmarking across facilities, and interoperability of patient safety data.[28],31 Organizational learning through structured IT-supported nursing documentation has been associated with sustained quality improvements over time.[44]

4.6.3 Alert Fatigue Mitigation. CDS alerts shall be designed and maintained to minimize alert fatigue.[40],41 The VAGC and HIT shall review alert firing rates, override rates, and clinician feedback at minimum semi-annually and shall modify alert logic to suppress clinically insignificant alerts while preserving high-priority safety alerts.[40]

5. Compliance

5.1 Monitoring. Compliance shall be monitored through quarterly chart audits assessing documentation completeness for insertions, assessments, maintenance, medication administration, and removals (using a standardized audit tool);[13],17,43 real-time EHR compliance reports tracking line necessity documentation completion rates, dressing change documentation timeliness, and BCMA scan rates;[36],41 review of late entry frequency and patterns;[20] and annual review of EHR template utilization and CDS alert effectiveness.[44],45,46 Chart review methods using retrospective nursing record data have been validated as reliable tools for identifying documentation omissions and care gaps.[43]

5.2 Key Performance Indicators.

  • Insertion documentation completeness rate (all required data elements present) (target: ≥95%).[6],12
  • Site assessment documentation timeliness rate (documented within one hour) (target: ≥90%).[26],5
  • Daily CVAD line necessity documentation rate (target: 100%).[9],8
  • BCMA scanning compliance rate for IV medications (target: ≥95%).[24]
  • Smart pump DERS utilization rate (target: ≥95%).[21],22,23
  • Removal documentation completeness rate (target: ≥95%).[25]

5.3 Enforcement. Documentation deficiencies identified through audits shall be addressed through individual clinician feedback and coaching.[43],44 Recurrent or systemic documentation failures shall be escalated through the progressive corrective action process. Documentation deficiencies identified as contributing factors in adverse events shall be addressed through the root cause analysis and quality improvement process.

6. Exceptions

6.1 In emergent, life-threatening situations where documentation must be deferred to prioritize patient care, the clinician shall complete all required documentation as soon as the patient is stabilized, and no later than the end of the clinician’s shift. The documentation shall include a notation that the entry was deferred due to an emergent clinical situation.

6.2 Requests for exceptions to specific documentation data element requirements (e.g., catheter lot number not available for an emergently placed device) shall be documented with the reason the element could not be captured.

  • SOP-VA-120: Vascular Access Insertion Documentation Procedure
  • SOP-VA-121: Vascular Access Site Assessment Documentation Procedure
  • SOP-VA-122: Vascular Access Device Removal Documentation Procedure
  • SOP-VA-123: EHR Vascular Access Template Maintenance and Review Procedure
  • SOP-VA-124: Retained Catheter Fragment Protocol
  • POL-003: Evidence-Based Selection and Clinical Monitoring Standards
  • POL-008: Quality Improvement in Vascular Access
  • POL-009: Patient Education in Infusion Therapy
  • POL-011: Informed Consent for Vascular Access Procedures
  • Vascular Access Documentation Audit Tool
  • Vascular Access EHR Template Specifications
  • Organizational Health Information Management Policy
  • Organizational BCMA Policy
  • Joint Commission Record of Care Standards (RC.01.01.01 et seq.)
  • CMS Conditions of Participation: Medical Record Services

8. Revision History

VersionDateAuthor(s)Description of Change
1.02026-02-01D. Woo, M. Stern, I.M. WrightInitial policy creation and approval
1.12026-02-23D. Woo, M. Stern, I.M. WrightAdded evidence-based citations
———Scheduled review date: 2027-02-01

9. References

1. De Groot K, Triemstra M, Paans W, Francke AL. Quality criteria, instruments, and requirements for nursing documentation: a systematic review of systematic reviews. J Adv Nurs. 2019;75(7):1379-1393. doi:10.1111/jan.13919

2. Furniss D, Lyons I, Franklin BD, et al. Procedural and documentation variations in intravenous infusion administration: a mixed methods study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):270. doi:10.1186/s12913-018-3025-x

3. Kuhn T, Basch P, Barr M, Yackel T. Clinical documentation in the 21st century: executive summary of a policy position paper. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(4):301-303. doi:10.7326/m14-2128

4. Ozkaynak M, Reeder B, Hoffecker L, et al. Use of electronic health records by nurses for symptom management in inpatient settings: a systematic review. Comput Inform Nurs. 2017;35(9):465-472. doi:10.1097/CIN.0000000000000329

5. Ray-Barruel G, Cooke M, Chopra V, et al. The I-DECIDED clinical decision-making tool for peripheral intravenous catheter assessment and safe removal. BMJ Open. 2020;10(1):e035239. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035239

6. Chen W, Yang Y, Li H, et al. Adherence to central-line insertion practices (CLIP) with PICC and CVC: a prospective study of 50 hospitals in China. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018;39(1):122-123. doi:10.1017/ice.2017.259

7. Hade AD, Beckmann LA, Basappa BK. A checklist to improve the quality of central venous catheter tip positioning. Anaesthesia. 2019;74(7):896-903. doi:10.1111/anae.14679

8. O’Grady NP, Alexander M, Burns LA, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Am J Infect Control. 2011;39(4 Suppl.):S1-S34. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2011.01.003

9. Buetti N, Marschall J, Drees M, et al. Strategies to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infections in acute-care hospitals: 2022 update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2022;43(5):553-569. doi:10.1017/ice.2022.87

10. Taylor JE, McDonald SJ, Earnest A, et al. A quality improvement initiative to reduce central line infection in neonates using checklists. Eur J Pediatr. 2017;176(5):639-646. doi:10.1007/s00431-017-2888-x

11. Thate J, Rossetti SC, McDermott-Levy R, Moriarty H. Identifying best practices in EHR documentation to support interprofessional communication for CLABSI prevention. Am J Infect Control. 2020;48(2):124-131. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2019.07.027

12. Upadhyaya K, Hendra H, Wilson N. A high impact intervention: improving documentation of peripheral venous access insertion in theatre. J Infect Prev. 2018;19(1):43-45. doi:10.1177/1757177417724881

13. Yagnik L, Graves A, Thong K. Plastic in patient study: prospective audit of adherence to peripheral intravenous cannula monitoring and documentation guidelines. Am J Infect Control. 2017;45(1):34-38. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2016.09.008

14. Alexandrou E, Ray-Barruel G, Carr PJ, et al. Use of short peripheral intravenous catheters: characteristics, management, and outcomes worldwide. J Hosp Med. 2018;13(5). doi:10.12788/jhm.3039

15. Brady T, Bruno F, Marchionni C, Paquet F. Prevalence and maintenance practices of peripheral intravenous catheters. Vasc Access. 2016;10(2):11-19.

16. DeVries M, Strimbu K. Short peripheral catheter performance following adoption of clinical indication removal. J Infus Nurs. 2019;42(2):81-90. doi:10.1097/NAN.0000000000000318

17. Høvik LH, Gjeilo KH, Lydersen S, et al. Monitoring quality of care for peripheral intravenous catheters; feasibility and reliability of the PIVC-miniQ. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):636. doi:10.1186/s12913-019-4497-z

18. Carry-Littles K, Nguyen K, Rowe T, et al. Symptom word documentation: a novel approach to identifying and managing hospital-acquired infections. Am J Infect Control. 2016;44(11):1424-1426. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2016.03.004

19. Park SM, Jeong IS, Kim KL, et al. The effect of intravenous infiltration management program for hospitalized children. J Pediatr Nurs. 2016;31(2):172-178. doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2015.10.013

20. Roydhouse SA, Carland JE, Debono DS, et al. Accuracy of documented administration times for intravenous antimicrobial drugs and impact on dosing decisions. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2021;87(11):4273-4282. doi:10.1111/bcp.14844

21. Joseph R, Lee SW, Anderson SV, Morrisette MJ. Impact of interoperability of smart infusion pumps and an electronic medical record in critical care. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 2020;77(15):1231-1236. doi:10.1093/ajhp/zxaa164

22. Suess TM, Beard JW, Trohimovich B. Impact of PCA smart pump-EHR interoperability with auto-documentation on chart completion. Pain Ther. 2019;8(2):261-269. doi:10.1007/s40122-019-0132-2

23. Wei W, Coffey W, Adeola M, Abbasi G. Impact of smart pump-EHR interoperability on patient safety and finances. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 2021. doi:10.1093/ajhp/zxab287

24. American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. ASHP guidelines on preventing medication errors in hospitals. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 2018;75:1493-1517.

25. Gorski LA. Phillips’s Manual of IV Therapeutics: Evidence-Based Practice for Infusion Therapy. 8th ed. FA Davis; 2023.

26. Gorski LA, Hallock D, Kuehn SC, et al. Recommendations for frequency of assessment of the short peripheral catheter site. J Infus Nurs. 2012;35(5):290-292. doi:10.1097/NAN.0b013e318267f636

27. Reimschissel E, Dela Cruz B, Gonzalez M, et al. Immunotherapy toxicities: a new electronic documentation template to improve patient care. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2017;21(2):41-44. doi:10.1188/17.CJON.S2.41-44

28. De Groot K, De Veer AJE, Paans W, Francke AL. Use of electronic health records and standardized terminologies: a nationwide survey. Int J Nurs Stud. 2020;104:103523. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103523

29. Ibrahim S, Donelle L, Regan S, Sidani S. A qualitative content analysis of nurses’ comfort and employment of workarounds with electronic documentation. Can J Nurs Res. 2020;52(1):31-44. doi:10.1177/0844562119855509

30. Perotti S, Ritchie A. Impact of hybridisation on the accuracy of fluid balance documentation. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2019;264:1751-1752. doi:10.3233/SHTI190630

31. Saranto K, Kinnunen UM, Kivekäs E, et al. Impacts of structuring nursing records: a systematic review. Scand J Caring Sci. 2014;28(4):629-647. doi:10.1111/scs.12094

32. Patterson ES, Sillars DM, Staggers N, et al. Safe practice recommendations for the use of copy-forward with nursing flow sheets. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2017;43(8):375-385. doi:10.1016/j.jcjq.2017.02.009

33. Ehrler F, Wu DTY, Ducloux P, Blondon K. A mobile application to support bedside nurse documentation and care: a time and motion study. JAMIA Open. 2021;4(3):ooab046. doi:10.1093/jamiaopen/ooab046

34. Husson NM, Trangenstein PA, Ketel C. Education to improve point of care documentation in home care nurses: a quality improvement project. Comput Inform Nurs. 2021;40(3):165-169. doi:10.1097/CIN.0000000000000811

35. Joseph J, Moore ZEH, Patton D, et al. Impact of implementing speech recognition technology on clinical documentation accuracy and efficiency. J Clin Nurs. 2020;29(13-14):2125-2137. doi:10.1111/jocn.15261

36. Classen D, Li M, Miller S, Ladner D. An EHR-based real-time analytics program for patient safety surveillance and improvement. Health Affairs. 2018;37(11):1805-1812. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2018.0728

37. Hyman D, Neiman J, Rannie M, et al. Innovative use of the EHR to support harm reduction efforts. Pediatrics. 2017;139(5):e20153410. doi:10.1542/peds.2015-3410

38. McCarthy B, Fitzgerald S, O’Shea M, et al. Electronic nursing documentation interventions to promote patient safety: a systematic review. J Nurs Manage. 2019;27(3):491-501. doi:10.1111/jonm.12727

39. Quan KA, Cousins SM, Porter DD, et al. EHR solutions to reduce CLABSI by enhancing documentation of central line practices. Am J Infect Control. 2016;44(4):438-443. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2015.10.036

40. Sittig DF, Singh H. Toward more proactive approaches to safety in the EHR era. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2017;43(10):540-547. doi:10.1016/j.jcjq.2017.06.005

41. Strudwick G, Booth R. Quality improvement in vascular access care through the use of electronic health records. JAVA. 2016;21(1):30-34. doi:10.1016/j.java.2015.11.004

42. Zanaboni P, Kummervold PE, Sørensen T, Johansen MA. Patient use and experience with online access to EHRs in Norway. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(2):e16144. doi:10.2196/16144

43. Saar L, Unbeck M, Bachnick S, et al. Exploring omissions in nursing care using retrospective chart review: an observational study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2021;122:104009. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.104009

44. Siegert T, Eberl I, Göhlich M. Organizational learning in hospitals: evaluation of the implementation of IT-supported nursing documentation. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2021;161:1-8. doi:10.1016/j.zefq.2021.01.002

45. Muthu N, Ratwani RM. Catalyzing pediatric EHR usability and safety improvements. Pediatrics. 2020;146(6):e2020030965. doi:10.1542/peds.2020-030965

46. Kutney-Lee A, Brooks Carthon M, Sloane DM, et al. EHR usability: associations with nurse and patient outcomes in hospitals. Med Care. 2021;59(7):625-631. doi:10.1097/MLR.0000000000001536

47. Kopanz J, Sendlhofer G, Lichtenegger K, et al. Evaluation of an implemented new insulin chart to improve safety of diabetes care. BMJ Open. 2021;11(1):e041298. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041298

48. Hough S, McDevitt R, Nachar VR, et al. Chemotherapy remote care monitoring program: integration of SMS text patient-reported outcomes in the EHR. JCO Oncol Pract. 2021;17(9):e1303-e1310. doi:10.1200/OP.20.00639

Teams can standardize this procedure with version control and compliance tracking.

Learn about qpolicy.ai