Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Which electronic health record system should we use? – a systematic review

Mohammed Al Ani, George Garas, James Hollingshead, Drostan Cheetham, Thanos Athanasiou, Vanash Patel
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.11.20210930
Mohammed Al Ani
1Department of Colorectal Surgery, West Hertfordshire NHS Trust, Watford General Hospital, Vicarage Road, WD18 0HB
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
George Garas
2Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London. 10th Floor QEQM Building, St Mary’s Hospital, London W2 1NY, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James Hollingshead
1Department of Colorectal Surgery, West Hertfordshire NHS Trust, Watford General Hospital, Vicarage Road, WD18 0HB
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Drostan Cheetham
1Department of Colorectal Surgery, West Hertfordshire NHS Trust, Watford General Hospital, Vicarage Road, WD18 0HB
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thanos Athanasiou
2Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London. 10th Floor QEQM Building, St Mary’s Hospital, London W2 1NY, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Vanash Patel
1Department of Colorectal Surgery, West Hertfordshire NHS Trust, Watford General Hospital, Vicarage Road, WD18 0HB
2Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London. 10th Floor QEQM Building, St Mary’s Hospital, London W2 1NY, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: vanash.patel06@imperial.ac.uk
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Objectives This is the first systematic review to look at all published data on EHRs to determine which systems are advantageous.

Design A systematic review was performed by searching EMBASE and Ovid MEDLINE between 1974 and November 2019.

Participants All original studies that appraised EHR systems were included.

Main outcome measures EHR system comparison, implementation, user satisfaction, efficiency and performance, documentation, and research and development.

Results The search strategy identified 701 studies, which were filtered down to 46 relevant studies. Level of evidence ranged from 1 to 4 according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. The majority of the studies were performed in the USA (n = 44). N=6 studies compared more than one EHR, and Epic followed by Cerner were the most favourable through direct comparison. N=17 studies evaluated implementation which highlighted that it was challenging, and productivity dipped in the early phase. N=5 studies reflected on user satisfaction, with women demonstrating higher satisfaction than men. Efficiency and performance issues were the driving force behind user dissatisfaction. N=26 studies addressed efficiency and performance, which improved with long-term use and familiarity. N=18 studies considered documentation and showed that EHRs had a positive impact with basic and speciality tasks. N=29 studies assessed research and development which revealed vast capabilities and positive implications.

Conclusion Epic is the most studied EHR system and the most commonly used vendor on the market. There is limited comparative data between EHR vendors, so it is difficult to assess which is the most advantageous system.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

No external funding was received.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Not applicable

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article (and its supplementary information files).

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted October 12, 2020.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Which electronic health record system should we use? – a systematic review
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Which electronic health record system should we use? – a systematic review
Mohammed Al Ani, George Garas, James Hollingshead, Drostan Cheetham, Thanos Athanasiou, Vanash Patel
medRxiv 2020.10.11.20210930; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.11.20210930
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Which electronic health record system should we use? – a systematic review
Mohammed Al Ani, George Garas, James Hollingshead, Drostan Cheetham, Thanos Athanasiou, Vanash Patel
medRxiv 2020.10.11.20210930; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.11.20210930

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Health Informatics
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (240)
  • Allergy and Immunology (521)
  • Anesthesia (125)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (1420)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (217)
  • Dermatology (158)
  • Emergency Medicine (291)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (584)
  • Epidemiology (10297)
  • Forensic Medicine (6)
  • Gastroenterology (527)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (2629)
  • Geriatric Medicine (254)
  • Health Economics (497)
  • Health Informatics (1733)
  • Health Policy (789)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (673)
  • Hematology (266)
  • HIV/AIDS (565)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (12093)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (649)
  • Medical Education (273)
  • Medical Ethics (83)
  • Nephrology (289)
  • Neurology (2461)
  • Nursing (145)
  • Nutrition (377)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (493)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (568)
  • Oncology (1324)
  • Ophthalmology (401)
  • Orthopedics (146)
  • Otolaryngology (237)
  • Pain Medicine (168)
  • Palliative Medicine (51)
  • Pathology (343)
  • Pediatrics (780)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (330)
  • Primary Care Research (296)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (2397)
  • Public and Global Health (5007)
  • Radiology and Imaging (893)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (528)
  • Respiratory Medicine (681)
  • Rheumatology (309)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (256)
  • Sports Medicine (245)
  • Surgery (298)
  • Toxicology (45)
  • Transplantation (140)
  • Urology (108)