Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40929723›Full record

ArticleJMIR cancer2025

Understanding and Addressing Challenges With Electronic Health Record Use in Gynecological Oncology: Cross-Sectional Survey of Multidisciplinary Professionals in the United Kingdom and Co-Design of an Integrated Informatics Platform to Support Clinical Decision-Making.

Laura Tookman, Rachael Lear, Yusuf S Abdullahi, Amit Samani, Phoebe Averill, Ashton Hunt, Dimitri Papadimitriou, Baleseng Elizabeth Nkolobe, Sadaf Ghaem-Maghami, Ben Glampson and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR cancer, 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. 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

12 authors.

Laura TookmaniCARE Secure Data Environment & Digital Collaboration Space, NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0752-3974
Rachael LeariCARE Secure Data Environment & Digital Collaboration Space, NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8670-3799
Yusuf S AbdullahiiCARE Secure Data Environment & Digital Collaboration Space, NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0004-2463-1269
Amit SamaniImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Hammersmith Hospital, Du Cane Road, London, W12 0HS, United Kingdom, 44 02033131151.ORCID 0000-0001-6570-4912
Phoebe AverilliCARE Secure Data Environment & Digital Collaboration Space, NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7099-3034
Ashton HuntImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Hammersmith Hospital, Du Cane Road, London, W12 0HS, United Kingdom, 44 02033131151.ORCID 0009-0003-4166-1358
Dimitri PapadimitriouiCARE Secure Data Environment & Digital Collaboration Space, NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7495-3221
Baleseng Elizabeth NkolobeImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Hammersmith Hospital, Du Cane Road, London, W12 0HS, United Kingdom, 44 02033131151.ORCID 0009-0009-8089-1192
Sadaf Ghaem-MaghamiDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7369-5080
Ben GlampsoniCARE Secure Data Environment & Digital Collaboration Space, NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5601-5581
Iain A McNeishDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9387-7586
Erik K MayeriCARE Secure Data Environment & Digital Collaboration Space, NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5509-4580

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Electronic health records (EHRs) are a cornerstone of modern health care delivery, but their current configuration often fragments information across systems, impeding timely and effective clinical decision-making. In gynecological oncology, where care involves complex, multidisciplinary coordination, these limitations can significantly impact the quality and efficiency of patient management. Few studies have examined how EHR systems support clinical decision-making from the perspective of end users. This study aimed to explore multiprofessional experiences of EHR use in gynecological oncology and to develop a co-designed informatics platform to improve decision-making for ovarian cancer care. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the perspectives of health care professionals on retrieving routine clinical data from EHRs in the management of ovarian cancer and to design an integrated informatics platform that supports clinical decision-making. Methods: We conducted a national cross-sectional survey of 92 UK-based professionals working in gynecological oncology, including oncologists, nurses, radiologists, and other specialists in ovarian cancer. The web-based questionnaire, combining quantitative and free-text responses, assessed their experiences with EHR use, focusing on information retrieval, usability challenges, perceived risks, and benefits. In parallel, a human-centered design approach involving health care professionals, data engineers, and informatics experts codeveloped a digital informatics platform that integrates structured and unstructured data from multiple clinical systems into a unified patient summary view for clinical decision-making. Natural language processing was applied to extract genomic and surgical information from free-text records, with data pipelines validated by clinicians against original clinical system sources. Results: Among 92 respondents, 84 out of 91 (92%) routinely accessed multiple EHR systems, with 26 out of 91 (29%) using 5 or more. Notably, 16 out of 92 respondents (17%) reported spending more than 50% of their clinical time searching for patient information. Key challenges included lack of interoperability (35/141 reported challenges, 24.8%), difficulty locating critical data such as genetic results (57/85 respondents, 67%), and poor organization of information. Only 10 out of 92 professionals (11%) strongly agreed that their systems provided well-organized data for clinical use. While ease of access to patient data was a key benefit, 54 out of 90 respondents (60%) reported lacking access to comprehensive patient summaries. To address these issues, our co-designed informatics platform consolidates disparate patients' data from different EHR systems into a single visual display to support clinical decision-making and audit. Conclusions: Current EHR systems are suboptimal for supporting complex gynecological oncology care. Our findings highlight the urgent need for integrated, user-centered clinical decision tools. Fragmentation and lack of interoperability hinder information retrieval and may compromise patient care. Our co-designed ovarian cancer informatics platform is a potential real-world solution to improve data visibility, clinical efficiency, and ultimately the quality of ovarian cancer care.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingElectronic Health RecordsGenital Neoplasms, FemaleMedical OncologyCross-Sectional StudiesDecision Support Systems, ClinicalFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Kingdomartificial intelligenceclinical decision supportco-designcoproductiondigital healthelectronic health recordsgynecological oncologyovarian cancer

Identifiers

PMID40929723
PMCPMC12422591

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.