Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38319701›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024

The Environmental Impacts of Electronic Medical Records Versus Paper Records at a Large Eye Hospital in India: Life Cycle Assessment Study.

Cordelia Kwon, Lernik Essayei, Michael Spencer, Tom Etheridge, Rengaraj Venkatesh, Natrajan Vengadesan, Cassandra L Thiel

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
15.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Cordelia KwonDepartment of Population Health, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0009-0001-2186-644X
Lernik EssayeiNYU Wagner School of Public Service, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0009-0003-1544-0092
Michael SpencerRausser College of Natural Resources, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States.ORCID 0009-0009-9477-3752
Tom EtheridgeEarthShift Global, Corvallis, OR, United States.ORCID 0009-0000-6635-1434
Rengaraj VenkateshAravind Eye Care System, Pondicherry, India.ORCID 0000-0001-7741-324X
Natrajan VengadesanAravind Eye Care System, Pondicherry, India.ORCID 0009-0005-3732-4775
Cassandra L ThielCenter for Healthcare Innovation and Delivery Science, Department of Population Health, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1875-886X
Aravind Eye Hospital · INNYU Langone Health · USUniversity of California, Berkeley · USWagner College · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth care providers worldwide are rapidly adopting electronic medical record (EMR) systems, replacing paper record-keeping systems. Despite numerous benefits to EMRs, the environmental emissions associated with medical record-keeping are unknown. Given the need for urgent climate action, understanding the carbon footprint of EMRs will assist in decarbonizing their adoption and use.

objectiveWe aimed to estimate and compare the environmental emissions associated with paper medical record-keeping and its replacement EMR system at a high-volume eye care facility in southern India.

methodsWe conducted the life cycle assessment methodology per the ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 14040 standard, with primary data supplied by the eye care facility. Data on the paper record-keeping system include the production, use, and disposal of paper and writing utensils in 2016. The EMR system was adopted at this location in 2018. Data on the EMR system include the allocated production and disposal of capital equipment (such as computers and routers); the production, use, and disposal of consumable goods like paper and writing utensils; and the electricity required to run the EMR system. We excluded built infrastructure and cooling loads (eg. buildings and ventilation) from both systems. We used sensitivity analyses to model the effects of practice variation and data uncertainty and Monte Carlo assessments to statistically compare the 2 systems, with and without renewable electricity sources.

resultsThis location's EMR system was found to emit substantially more greenhouse gases (GHGs) than their paper medical record system (195,000 kg carbon dioxide equivalents [CO

conclusionsThe climate-changing emissions associated with an EMR system are heavily dependent on the sources of electricity. With a decarbonized electricity source, the EMR system's GHG emissions are on par with paper medical record-keeping, and decarbonized grids would likely have a much broader benefit to society. Though we found that the EMR system produced more emissions than a paper record-keeping system, this study does not account for potential expanded environmental gains from EMRs, including expanding access to care while reducing patient travel and operational efficiencies that can reduce unnecessary or redundant care.

Indexed as

Carbon FootprintElectronic Health RecordsHospitals, SpecialMedical RecordsPaperClimateClimate ChangeEnvironmentHealth Care SectorIndiaOphthalmologySoftwarecarbon emissionselectronic health recordselectronic medical recordsenvironmental impactgreenhouse gaseslife cycle assessmentlow middle income countrymedical recordspaper medical recordssustainability

Identifiers

PMID38319701
PMCPMC10879968
OpenAlexW4391567503

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.