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
. 2025 Feb 14:8:e60107.
doi: 10.2196/60107.

Best Practices for Implementing Electronic Care Records in Adult Social Care: Rapid Scoping Review

Martha Snow  1 , Wagner Silva-Ribeiro  1 , Mary Baginsky  2 , Sonya Di Giorgio  3 , Nicola Farrelly  4 , Cath Larkins  4 , Karen Poole  3 , Nicole Steils  2 , Joanne Westwood  4 , Juliette Malley  1
Affiliations

Best Practices for Implementing Electronic Care Records in Adult Social Care: Rapid Scoping Review

Martha Snow et al. JMIR Aging. .

Abstract

Background: In the past decade, the use of digital or electronic records in social care has risen worldwide, capturing key information for service delivery. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated digitization in health and social care. For example, the UK government created a fund specifically for adult social care provider organizations to adopt digital social care records. These developments offer valuable learning opportunities for implementing digital care records in adult social care settings.

Objective: This rapid scoping review aimed to understand what is known about the implementation of digital care records in adult social care and how implementation varies across use cases, settings, and broader contexts.

Methods: A scoping review methodology was used, with amendments made to enable a rapid review. Comprehensive searches based on the concepts of digital care records, social care, and interoperability were conducted across the MEDLINE, EmCare, Web of Science Core Collection, HMIC Health Management Information Consortium, Social Policy and Practice, and Social Services Abstracts databases. Studies published between 2018 and 2023 in English were included. One reviewer screened titles and abstracts, while 2 reviewers extracted data. Thematic analysis mapped findings against the nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability (NASSS) framework.

Results: Our search identified 2499 references. After screening titles and abstracts, 71 records were selected for full-text review, resulting in 31 references from 29 studies. Studies originated from 11 countries, including 1 multicountry study, with the United Kingdom being the most represented (10/29, 34%). Studies were most often conducted in nursing homes or facilities (7/29, 24%) with older people as the target population (6/29, 21%). Health records were the most investigated record type (12/29, 41%). We identified 45 facilitators and 102 barriers to digital care record implementation across 28 studies, spanning 6 of the 7 NASSS framework domains and aligning with 5 overarching themes that require greater active management regarding implementation. Intended or actual implementation outcomes were reported in 17 (59%) of the 29 studies.

Conclusions: The findings suggest that implementation is complex due to a lack of consensus on what digital care records and expected outcomes and impacts should look like. The literature often lacks clear definitions and robust study designs. To be successful, implementation should consider complexity, while studies should use robust frameworks and mixed methods or quantitative designs where appropriate. Future research should define the target population, gather data on carer or service user experiences, and focus on digital care records specifically used in social care.

Keywords: PRISMA; adult social care; care homes; digital care records; digitization; domiciliary care; electronic care records.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 flowchart. DSCR: digital social care record.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bongaarts J. Human population growth and the demographic transition. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009 Oct 27;364(1532):2985–90. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2009.0137. https://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/19770150 364/1532/2985 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kruse CS, Mileski M, Vijaykumar AG, Viswanathan SV, Suskandla U, Chidambaram Y. Impact of electronic health records on long-term care facilities: systematic review. JMIR Med Inform. 2017 Sep 29;5(3):e35. doi: 10.2196/medinform.7958. https://medinform.jmir.org/2017/3/e35/ v5i3e35 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Maguire D, Evans H, Honeyman M, Omojomolo D. Digital change in health and social care. The King's Fund. 2018. Jun 20, [2025-02-05]. https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/reports/digital-change... .
    1. Health at a glance 2023. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2023. Nov 7, [2025-02-05]. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2023/11/health-at-a-glance-2023_e04... .
    1. Slawomirski L, Lindner L, de Bienassis K, Haywood P, Hashiguchi TC, Steentjes M, Oderkirk J. Progress on implementing and using electronic health record systems: developments in OECD countries as of 2021. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2023. Sep 13, [2025-02-05]. https://tinyurl.com/4fspm6ry .

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources