ArticleCureus2025
The Impact of Electronic Medical Records on Healthcare Professionals' Satisfaction and Service Delivery at the Federal Medical Centre, Gusau.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Electronic medical records (EMRs) are vital tools in enhancing healthcare delivery through better documentation, communication, and data retrieval. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), including Nigeria, EMR implementation faces challenges such as limited infrastructure, poor usability, and insufficient training. This study assesses the impact of EMRs on healthcare professionals' satisfaction and its effect on healthcare service delivery at Federal Medical Centre (FMC) Gusau, identifying key predictors and challenges to inform implementation strategies. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted at FMC Gusau, Zamfara State, Nigeria, a tertiary healthcare facility, from October 2024 to January 2025. Among 415 clinical staff selected through stratified random sampling after data cleaning, responses with more than 50% unfilled fields were removed from the initial 423; a semi-structured questionnaire was adapted, modified, and pretested for internal consistency (Cronbach alpha 0.88 with 10% sample, n=42) to evaluate EMR satisfaction, service delivery impact, and utilization challenges. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 20 (IBM Inc., Armonk, New York); summary statistics included frequencies and percentages for categorical variables, means for normally distributed continuous variables, and medians with interquartile ranges for skewed data. Ordinal logistic regression was used to identify predictors of satisfaction (p<0.05). Results Of the 415 respondents, 36 (8.7%) reported high satisfaction, 192 (46.3%) reported moderate satisfaction, and 187 (45.1%) reported dissatisfaction. Satisfaction was highest for system navigability, 294 (70.9%), and data retrieval speed, 303 (73.0%). EMRs were perceived to improve documentation 279 (67.2%), record access 334 (80.4%), and interdepartmental communication 265 (63.9%), though 204(49.2%) noted increased documentation time. Training (AOR=2.68, 95% CI=1.52-4.71, p=0.001) was a significant predictor, while duration of practice showed no significant effect (AOR=0.95, 95% CI=0.55-1.64, p=0.852). Major challenges included limited training 108 (26.0%), IT support 97 (23.3%), and interface issues 80 (19.3%). Conclusion EMRs offer clear benefits in improving healthcare delivery, yet user satisfaction remains moderate due to technical and training-related barriers. Strengthening training, IT support, and user-centered design is crucial for effective EMR adoption and sustainability in resource-constrained settings.
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.