ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
25 Years of Electronic Health Record Implementation Processes: Scoping Review.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Shoulder-to-shoulder: healthcare professionals' experiences of learning during electronic health record implementation in municipal primary care.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
- Implementation determinants and outcomes of artificial intelligence in surgical healthcare: a systematic review protocol.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Early Implementation of a Nationwide Opt-Out Electronic Health Record for Outpatient Care in Germany: Qualitative Semistructured Interview Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- User Experiences of Electronic Controlled Substance Surveillance Among Health Care Professionals in a Large Academic Hospital: Cross-Sectional Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Examining Electronic Medical Record Migration in a Team-Based Primary Care Clinic: Case Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Harnessing institutional knowledge: mixed methods evaluation of peer coaching in a multi-site EHR transition.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Article
- Leveraging Real-World Data for Clinical Decision Making in Geriatric Oncology.Drugs & aging · 2026Review
- An exploratory mixed-methods study using the ELICIT framework to identify stakeholder-informed implementation strategies for a population health platform.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Review
- Deconstructing the Interoperability Stack: A Comparative Technical Analysis of HL7 v2, CDA, and the FHIR Resource Framework.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Review
- Sociotechnical Needs of Registered Nurses in the Heart Failure Hospitalizations of African American Patients: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR nursing · 2025Observational
- A DeepSeek-powered locally deployed closed-loop system for enhancing quality control in electronic nursing documentation: development and clinical validation.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Article
- Outcomes of an Advanced Epic Personalization Course on Clinician Efficiency through Use of Electronic Medical Records: Retrospective Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Implementing an electronic health record system in a tertiary care surgical oncology setup - A mixed method analysis.Digital healthArticle
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
backgroundElectronic health record (EHR) systems have undergone substantial evolution over the past 25 years, transitioning from rudimentary digital repositories to sophisticated tools that are integral to modern health care delivery. These systems have the potential to increase efficiency and improve patient care. However, for these systems to reach their potential, we need to understand how the process of EHR implementation works.
objectiveThis scoping review aimed to examine the implementation process of EHRs from 1999 to 2024 and to articulate process-focused recommendations for future EHR implementations that build on this history of EHR research.
methodsWe conducted a scoping literature review following a systematic methodological framework. A total of 5 databases were selected from the disciplines of medicine and business: EBSCO, PubMed, Embase, IEEE Explore, and Scopus. The search included studies published from 1999 to 2024 that addressed the process of implementing an EHR. Keywords included "EHR," "EHRS," "Electronic Health Record*," "EMR," "EMRS," "Electronic Medical Record*," "implemen*," and "process." The findings were reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist. The selected literature was thematically coded using NVivo qualitative analysis software, with the results reported qualitatively.
resultsThis review included 90 studies that described the process of EHR implementation in different settings. The studies identified key elements, such as the role of the government and vendors, the importance of communication and relationships, the provision of training and support, and the implementation approach and cost. Four process-related categories emerged from these results: compliance processes, collaboration processes, competence-development processes, and process costs.
conclusionsAlthough EHRs hold immense promise in improving patient care, enhancing research capabilities, and optimizing health care efficiency, there is a pressing need to examine the actual implementation process to understand how to approach implementation. Our findings offer 7 process-focused recommendations for EHR implementation formed from analysis of the selected literature.
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.