Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33078276›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical systems2020

Health Outcomes and Healthcare Efficiencies Associated with the Use of Electronic Health Records in Hospital Emergency Departments: a Systematic Review.

Alexandra Mullins, Renee O'Donnell, Mariam Mousa, David Rankin, Michael Ben-Meir, Christopher Boyd-Skinner, Helen Skouteris

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical systems, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Digital exclusion in healthcare services: a scoping review.International journal for equity in health · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Alexandra MullinsMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation (MCHRI), School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Alexandra.mullins@monash.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0285-9156
Renee O'DonnellMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation (MCHRI), School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Mariam MousaMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation (MCHRI), School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
David RankinCabrini Health, Malvern, Victoria, Australia.
Michael Ben-MeirCabrini Health, Malvern, Victoria, Australia.
Christopher Boyd-SkinnerAustralian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Helen SkouterisMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation (MCHRI), School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Healthcare organisations and governments have invested heavily in electronic health records in anticipation that they will deliver improved health outcomes for consumers and efficiencies across emergency departments. Despite such investment, electronic health records designed to support emergency care have been poorly evaluated. Given the accelerated development and adoption of information technology across healthcare, it is timely that a systematic review of this evidence base is updated in order to drive improvements to design, interoperability and overall clinical utility of electronic health record systems implemented in emergency departments. To assess the impact of electronic health records on healthcare outcomes and efficiencies in the emergency department we carried out a systematic review of published studies on this topic. This is the first review to summarise the cost efficiencies associated with electronic health record use outside of just the United States of America. A systematic search was performed in three scientific databases (MEDLINE, EMcare and EMBASE), of literature published between January 2000 and September 2019. Studies were included in this review if they evaluated electronic health records or health information exchanges (and synonyms for these terms), reported patient outcome and/or healthcare efficiency benefits, were peer-reviewed and published in English. Out of 6635 articles, 23 studies met our inclusion criteria. Wide variation regarding electronic health record access in the emergency department was reported (1.46-56.6%), yet was most frequently reported as less than 20%. Seven different types of health outcomes and three different types of efficiency improvements associated with electronic health record use in the emergency department were identified. The most frequently reported findings were efficiencies, including reductions in diagnostic tests, imaging and costs. This review is the first to report moderate to significant increases in admission rates are associated with electronic health record use in the emergency department, contrasting the findings of previous reviews. Diversity in the methodology employed across the included studies emphasises the need for further research to examine the impact of electronic health record implementation and system design on the findings reported, in order to ensure return on investment for stakeholders and optimised consumer care.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareElectronic Health RecordsEmergency Service, HospitalHospitalsHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareEfficienciesElectronic health recordEmergency departmentHealth outcomesSystematic review

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.