Cited by 305Electronic Health Records SystemsMedical Coding and Health InformationNursing Diagnosis and Documentation

Effects of Electronic Health Record Implementation and Barriers to Adoption and Use: A Scoping Review and Qualitative Analysis of the Content

Open access
Tsai, Chen Hsi, Eghdam, Aboozar, Davoody, Nadia, Wright, Graham, Flowerday, Stephen, Koch, Sabine·2020·Life

Abstract

Despite the great advances in the field of electronic health records (EHRs) over the past 25 years, implementation and adoption challenges persist, and the benefits realized remain below expectations. This scoping review aimed to present current knowledge about the effects of EHR implementation and the barriers to EHR adoption and use. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore Digital Library and ACM Digital Library for studies published between January 2005 and May 2020. In total, 7641 studies were identified of which 142 met the criteria and attained the consensus of all researchers on inclusion. Most studies (n = 91) were published between 2017 and 2019 and 81 studies had the United States as the country of origin. Both positive and negative effects of EHR implementation were identified, relating to clinical work, data and information, patient care and economic impact. Resource constraints, poor/insufficient training and technical/educational support for users, as well as poor literacy and skills in technology were the identified barriers to adoption and use that occurred frequently. Although this review did not conduct a quality analysis of the included papers, the lack of uniformity in the use of EHR definitions and detailed contextual information concerning the study settings could be observed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/life10120327

Cites

163 of 163 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • AI clinical decision support assists clinicians in making more informed decisions.

    “This assists clinicians in making more informed decisions.[13]”

    From Ethical implications of AI and robotics in healthcare: A review (2023) · cites this paper as [13]

    In Results §3.1, under “Support Learning and Decision-Making” (page not provided), the review reports that clinicians saw EHRs as supporting learning and decision-making. It does not establish that AI clinical decision support, specifically, helps clinicians make more informed decisions. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • AI systems provide healthcare professionals with real-time clinical decision support, offering evidence-based recommendations for treatment plans, drug interactions, and diagnostic accuracy.

    “AI systems provide healthcare professionals with real-time clinical decision support, offering evidence-based recommendations for treatment plans, drug interactions, and diagnostic accuracy.”

    From Ethical implications of AI and robotics in healthcare: A review (2023) · cites this paper as [13]

    The Results section (3.1, “Support Learning and Decision-Making”; page not available) reports that EHRs can support clinicians’ learning and decision-making. Our copy does not address AI systems providing real-time, evidence-based recommendations for treatment plans, drug interactions, or diagnosis; searches for AI clinical decision support and drug interactions found no passage supporting those specifics. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • AI-driven algorithms can analyze vast datasets, including genomic information, to tailor treatment plans to individual patients.

    “AI-driven algorithms can analyze vast datasets, including genomic information, to tailor treatment plans to individual patients.”

    From Ethical implications of AI and robotics in healthcare: A review (2023) · cites this paper as [11]

    The Results section (3.1, page unavailable) discusses EHR support for disease management and clinical decision-making, but not AI-driven analysis of genomic data to tailor treatment plans. Searches for “genomic” and “AI-driven algorithms” found no passage addressing that claim. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Precision medicine allows for more accurate diagnosis and personalized treatment strategies.

    “This approach, known as precision medicine, allows for more accurate diagnosis and personalized treatment strategies.[11]”

    From Ethical implications of AI and robotics in healthcare: A review (2023) · cites this paper as [11]

    The Results (§3.1, page not available in our copy) discuss EHR-supported disease management and person-centered care, not precision medicine. Searches for “precision medicine,” diagnostic accuracy, and personalized treatment found no passage addressing the claimed benefits. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 164 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [1]Institute of Medicine—Committee on Improving the Patient Record The Computer-Based Patient Record an Essential Technology for Health Care Revised Edition National Academy Press Washington, DC, USA 1997
  2. [108]Khairat S. Burke G. Archambault H. Schwartz T. Larson J. Ratwani R.M. Perceived Burden of EHRs on Physicians at Different Stages of Their Career Appl. Clin. Inform. 2018 9 336 347 29768634 PMC5955717
  3. [133]Liew C.L. Harjadinata J. Patient Portal Service: An Exploration of Patients’ Experience and Perception Proceedings of the ICDS 2017: The Eleventh International Conference on Digital Society Nice, France 19–23 March 2017 1 5

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tsai, C. H., Eghdam, A., Davoody, N., Wright, G., Flowerday, S., & Koch, S.
Affiliations
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
  • Rhodes University (ZA)
Corresponding author
Koch, Sabine
Venue
Life
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-12-04
Volume
10
Issue
12
Pages
327
ISSN
2075-1729 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3109639294
Cited by
305
References
164
Citations by year
2026: 63 · 2025: 95 · 2024: 68 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 13
FWCI
3.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Life (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Forskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd (2016-07324)
  • South African Medical Research Council (2016-07324)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Keywords
electronic health records, EHR implementation, clinical work, patient care, economic impact, resource constraints, employee training, technical support, digital literacy, technological competence

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