Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Apr 4;8(4):e60636.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060636. Print 2013.

Evaluation of Electronic Medical Record (EMR) at large urban primary care sexual health centre

Christopher K Fairley  1 , Lenka A Vodstrcil, Sarah Huffam, Rosey Cummings, Marcus Y Chen, Jun K Sze, Glenda Fehler, Catriona S Bradshaw, Tina Schmidt, Karen Berzins, Jane S Hocking
Affiliations

Evaluation of Electronic Medical Record (EMR) at large urban primary care sexual health centre

Christopher K Fairley et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Objective: Despite substantial investment in Electronic Medical Record (EMR) systems there has been little research to evaluate them. Our aim was to evaluate changes in efficiency and quality of services after the introduction of a purpose built EMR system, and to assess its acceptability by the doctors, nurses and patients using it.

Methods: We compared a nine month period before and after the introduction of an EMR system in a large sexual health service, audited a sample of records in both periods and undertook anonymous surveys of both staff and patients.

Results: There were 9,752 doctor consultations (in 5,512 consulting hours) in the Paper Medical Record (PMR) period and 9,145 doctor consultations (in 5,176 consulting hours in the EMR period eligible for inclusion in the analysis. There were 5% more consultations per hour seen by doctors in the EMR period compared to the PMR period (rate ratio = 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.02, 1.08) after adjusting for type of consultation. The qualitative evaluation of 300 records for each period showed no difference in quality (P>0.17). A survey of clinicians demonstrated that doctors and nurses preferred the EMR system (P<0.01) and a patient survey in each period showed no difference in satisfaction of their care (97% for PMR, 95% for EMR, P = 0.61).

Conclusion: The introduction of an integrated EMR improved efficiency while maintaining the quality of the patient record. The EMR was popular with staff and was not associated with a decline in patient satisfaction in the clinical care provided.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

    1. Jones SS, Heaton PS, Rudin RS, Schneider EC (2012) Unraveling the IT productivity paradox-lessons for health care. N Engl J Med 366: 2243–2245. - PubMed
    1. Pearce C (2009) Electronic medical records-where to from here? Aust Fam Physician 38: 537–540. - PubMed
    1. Protti D, Bowden T (2010) Electronic Medical Record Adoption in New Zealand Primary Care Physician Offices. Commonwealth Fund 96: 1–13.
    1. Holroyd-Leduc JM, Lorenzetti D, Straus SE, Sykes L, Quan H (2011) The impact of the electronic medical record on structure, process, and outcomes within primary care: a systematic review of the evidence. J Am Med Inform Assoc 18: 732–737. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Poissant L, Pereira J, Tamblyn R, Kawasumi Y (2005) The impact of electronic health records on time efficiency of physicians and nurses: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 12: 505–516. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources