Cited by 15Electronic Health Records SystemsInnovations in Medical EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

An Electronic Medical Record in Pediatric Medical Education: Survey of Medical Students' Expectations and Experiences

Open access
Cheng, Daryl, Scodellaro, Thomas, Uahwatanasakul, Wonie, South, Mike·2018·Applied Clinical Informatics

Abstract

Objective This study sought to quantitatively characterize medical students' expectations and experiences of an electronic health record (EHR) system in a hospital setting, and to examine perceived and actual impacts on learning. Methods Medical students from July to December 2016 at a tertiary pediatric institution completed pre- and postrotation surveys evaluating their expectations and experience of using an EHR during a pediatric medicine rotation. Survey data included past technology experience, EHR accessibility, use of learning resources, and effect on learning outcomes and patient–clinician communication. Results Students generally reported high computer self-efficacy (4.16 ± 0.752, mean ± standard deviation), were comfortable with learning new software (4.08 ± 0.771), and expected the EHR to enhance their overall learning (4.074 ± 0.722). Students anticipated the EHR to be easy to learn, use, and operate, which was consistent with their experience (pre 3.86 vs. post 3.90, p = 0.56). Students did not expect nor experience that the EHR reduced their interaction, visual contact, or ability to build rapport with patients. The EHR did not meet expectations to facilitate learning around medication prescribing, placing orders, and utilizing online resources. Students found that the EHR marginally improved feedback surrounding clinical contributions to patient care from clinicians, although not to the expected levels (pre 3.50 vs. post 3.17, p < 0.01). Conclusion Medical students readily engaged with the EHR, recognized several advantages in clinical practice, and did not consider their ability to interact with patients was impaired. There was widespread consensus that the EHR enhanced their learning and clinician's feedback, but not to the degree they had expected.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1055/s-0038-1675371

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cheng, D., Scodellaro, T., Uahwatanasakul, W., & South, M.
Affiliations
Royal Children's Hospital (AU)
Corresponding author
Cheng, Daryl
Venue
Applied Clinical Informatics
Published
2018-10
Volume
09
Issue
04
Pages
809-816
ISSN
1869-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2899916078
Cited by
15
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2
FWCI
2.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Applied Clinical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
electronic health records, pediatric medical education, medical students, clinical rotations, student expectations, computer self-efficacy, patient-physician communication, clinical feedback, learning outcomes, EHR usability, drug prescribing
MeSH terms
Adult, Communication, Education, Medical, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Motivation, Pediatrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Students, Medical, Multivariate Analysis, Young Adult, Electronic Health Records

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review