Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40499968›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Physician experiences of electronic health record interoperability and its practical impact on care delivery in the English NHS: a cross-sectional survey study.

Edmond Li, Olivia Lounsbury, Mujtaba Hasnain, Hutan Ashrafian, Ara Darzi, Ana Luisa Neves, Jonathan Clarke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Yonder: Physician's end-of-life care preferences, diagnostic labels, electronic health record interoperability, and opioid prescriptions.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Edmond LiGlobal Digital Health Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK edmond.li19@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8209-4490
Olivia LounsburyGlobal Digital Health Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0906-0339
Mujtaba HasnainSchool of Medical Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Hutan AshrafianInstitute of Global Health Innovation, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1668-0672
Ara DarziInstitute of Global Health Innovation, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Ana Luisa NevesGlobal Digital Health Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7107-7211
Jonathan ClarkeInstitute of Global Health Innovation, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1495-7746

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe lack of interoperability has been a well-recognised limitation associated with the use of electronic health records (EHR). However, less is known about how it manifests for frontline NHS staff when delivering care, how it impacts patient care and what its implications are on care efficiency.

objectives(1) To capture the perceptions of NHS physicians regarding the current state of EHR interoperability, (2) to investigate how poor interoperability affects patient care and safety and (3) to explore the effects it has had on care efficiency in the NHS.

methodsAn online Qualtrics survey was conducted between June and October 2021 to explore how NHS physicians perceived the present state of interoperability among EHR in service, its effects on patient safety and its impact on care efficiency in NHS healthcare facilities. Recruitment was performed via convenience sampling and snowballing in collaboration with contacts at Health Education England deaneries and the Royal College of General Practitioners. Descriptive statistics were used to report any notable findings observed.

resultsA total of 636 NHS physicians participated, of which 218 (34.3%) completed the survey fully. Participants reported that EHR interoperability is rudimentary across much of the NHS, with limited ability to read but not edit data from within their organisation. Negative perceptions were most pronounced among specialties in secondary care settings and those with less than 1 year of EHR experience or lower self-reported EHR skills. Limited interoperability prolonged hospital stays, lengthened consultation times and frequently necessitated repeat investigations to be performed. Limited EHR interoperability impaired physician access to clinical data, hampered communication between providers and was perceived to threaten patient safety.

conclusionAs healthcare data continues to increase in complexity and volume, EHR interoperability must evolve to accommodate these growing changes and ensure the continued delivery of safe care. The experiences of physicians provide valuable insight into the practical challenges limited interoperability poses and can contribute to future policy solutions to better integrate EHR in the clinical environment.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelDelivery of Health CareElectronic Health RecordsHealth Information InteroperabilityPhysiciansState MedicineAdultCross-Sectional StudiesEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SafetySurveys and QuestionnairesDigital TechnologyElectronic Health RecordsHealth informaticsHealth & safetyHealth Services

Identifiers

PMID40499968
PMCPMC12161308

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.