Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39951702›Full record

ArticleJMIR aging2025

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

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

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR aging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

10 authors.

Martha SnowCare Policy and Evaluation Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6493-5292
Wagner Silva-RibeiroCare Policy and Evaluation Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6735-3861
Mary BaginskyNIHR Health & Social Care Workforce Research Unit, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8763-2363
Sonya Di GiorgioLibraries & Collections, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2777-209X
Nicola FarrellySchool of Health, Social Work and Sport, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9006-335X
Cath LarkinsSchool of Health, Social Work and Sport, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2999-6916
Karen PooleLibraries & Collections, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2934-0004
Nicole SteilsNIHR Health & Social Care Workforce Research Unit, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9494-7443
Joanne WestwoodSchool of Health, Social Work and Sport, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7560-1391
Juliette MalleyCare Policy and Evaluation Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5759-1647

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 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.

objectiveThis 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.

methodsA 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.

resultsOur 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.

conclusionsThe 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.

Indexed as

COVID-19Electronic Health RecordsSocial WorkAdultHumansSARS-CoV-2United Kingdomadult social carecare homesdigital care recordsdigitizationdomiciliary careelectronic care recordsPRISMA

Identifiers

PMID39951702
PMCPMC11888009

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.