ArticleBMJ open2017
Distribution and extent of electronic medical record utilisation in eye units across the United Kingdom: a cross-sectional study of the current landscape.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing electronic medical record usage in private healthcare facilities of Amhara region, Ethiopia.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comment on: Are electronic medical records a medicolegal risk to the oculoplastic surgeon? A survey of British Oculoplastic Surgery Society Members.Eye (London, England) · 2023Article
- End-to-End Impact of a Cloud-Based Surgical Planning System on Efficiency in Cataract Surgery: A Time-and-Motion Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Article
- [Employee survey after introduction of the FIDUS electronic patient file at the Saarland University Eye Hospital].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2022Article
- The highs and lows of Medisoft as an audit tool: lessons from a 5-year upper eyelid ptosis audit.Eye (London, England) · 2021Article
- Impact of accreditation on documentation and staff perception in the ophthalmology department of an Indian medical college.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Commentary: Electronic medical record system - should complement but not replace traditional health care.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2020Article
- Electronic medical records - The good, the bad and the ugly.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2020Article
- Providing a Safe and Effective Intravitreal Treatment Service: Strategies for Service Delivery.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2020Article
- [Work in progress: adaptation of electronic medical records to the requirements of a university eye clinic : Individual extensions of the software "FIDUS" at the Department of Ophthalmology of the Saarland University Medical Center UKS].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2019Article
- [Per aspera ad astra: implementation of electronic patient records in a university eye hospital : Experience with FIDUS in the Clinic for Ophthalmology at the Saarland University Medical Center UKS].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2018Article
- Implementing a Common Data Model in Ophthalmology: Mapping Structured Electronic Health Record Ophthalmic Examination Data to Standard Vocabularies.Ophthalmology scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesOphthalmology units across the UK vary widely in their adoption of electronic medical records (EMR). There is a lack of evidence to show the extent and progress of EMR adoption. The aim of this study was to capture a snapshot of the current landscape of EMR use, as a baseline for comparison in future studies.
settingAn electronic survey questionnaire was sent to all NHS ophthalmology Units in the UK.
participantsA total of 104 National Health Service (NHS) ophthalmology units participated in the survey, which was carried out over 6 months from December 2013 to June 2014. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Respondents were asked about technology usage pertaining to specific processes in the clinic workflow. This allowed us to determine the extent of EMR usage and details about current use or planned implementation by each unit.
results77.6% (n=104) of NHS ophthalmology units responded. 45.3% (n=48) of units were currently using an EMR and a further 26.4% (n=28) of units plan to implement EMR within 2 years. 70.8% of units with a current EMR system use Medisoft. EMR is used by all clinicians in 37.5% and by all subspecialties offered at the unit in 27.0%. In 56.3%, new clinical notes are entered into EMR only by clinicians. All imaging devices are networked to EMR in 28.3%. In 46.7%, EMR is accessible by other specialties within the same hospital. 71.1% would recommend EMR to a colleague.
conclusionsEMR has the potential to address current limitations of patient information transfer and sharing in ophthalmology. It is pleasing to see a significant proportion of units already engaging with EMR or having plans to do so in the near future. However, differing EMR systems and lack of remote access mean further optimisation of these record systems are needed to allow data transfer between units.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.