INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 3225
www.rsisinternational.org
Evaluating the Impact of Electronic Medical Record Implementation
on Critical Efficiency: Evidence of Measurable Improvements
Kehinde Sulaimon
Lincoln University, Nigeria
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.1210000281
Received: 23 October 2025; Accepted: 31 October 2025; Published: 19 November 2025
ABSTRACT
To improve care coordination, streamline workflows, and reduce clinical errors, there has been a wide
adoption of Electronic Medical Records [EMRs]. Despite these useful functions, questions still rise as to
how impactful they are on operational efficiency. To that effect, this paper investigates the impact of
implementing EMR on critical efficiency metrics which includes, but are not limited to staff productivity,
patient wait times, documentation time, and medication error. Quantitative data from pre-implementation
and post-implementation studies, and qualitative data from clinicians and administrators will be used.
Although transitional inefficiencies have been noted in early implementation phases, significant progress
has been found, as to enhanced data accessibility, documentation speed, and reduction in unnecessary
testing. The outcome of the study sums up that EMR networks are known to offer long-lasting gains of
efficiency, especially when joined with workforce training and workflow redesign and updating. The
recommendations focus on implementation in phases, continuous improvement, and user-tailored designs,
if benefits must be maximized and adoption burdens reduced.
Keywords: Electronic Medical Records, Clinical Efficiency, Health Informatics, Patient Safety, Workflow
Optimization
INTRODUCTION
An electronic medical record” (EMR) is defined as an “electronic record of an individual in a physician’s
office or clinic, which is typically in one setting and is provider-centric” [1].
For decades, it has been an increasing challenge of verifying and ascertaining medical histories of patients
due to loss of past test results and prescriptions. Studies note that many patients patronize various health
centers for diagnosis and treatment [2]. It then becomes imperative that records of past treatment must be
consulted to ensure proper continuous care for patients which according to a study [3] “can encourage
patient, care, coordination, and continuity [PCCC] between healthcare facilities”.
Preservation of medical histories of patients is also key [4]. It has been recorded that often, there is a link
between a patient not revealing medical history and their vulnerability to greater harm due to diagnostic
error in a new healthcare center [5].
The failures of paper-based documentation including the inaccuracy and incomprehensiveness of data [6],
necessitated the adoption of electronic medical records for the sole purpose of recording clinical information
in digital form [clinical notes, medications, test results, and orders] during patient care. According to [7],
medical practitioners now recognize the contribution to the rise of productivity, efficiency and effectiveness in
healthcare by electronic medical records, demonstrated in paper records being computerized and made
shareable between internet network systems. Another study [8] highlighted the limitations of paper-based
systems as “incompletely filled paper charts, handwriting that is difficult to read, and missing notes that make
it difficult for medical professionals to access vital patient data and lower the standard of care provided to
patients”. Similarly, [9] avers that as a result of insufficient patient medical history, paper documentation can
result in misdiagnosis, further threatening the health of patients. The adoption of the EMRs constitutes a core
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 3226
www.rsisinternational.org
transformation in modern health systems, transitioning care from manual, fragmented recordkeeping to data-
driven, digital operations.
Digital records have over the years proven quantifiable change in patient care delivery by reducing
retrieval duration of needed information. They have also been known to support health measurement of
various populations and performance feedback. Previous policy and economic analyses have recorded
measurable benefits in efficiency, safety, and cost reduction, due to the adoption of electronic medical
records [10].
EMR adoption across the globe has spread widely especially in developed countries, where national
health policies and financial incentives have catalysed the quickened grasp. In the United States [11], it is
noted that “nearly 4 in 5 office-based physicians (78%) and nearly all non-federal acute care hospitals
(96%) adopted a certified EHR. This marks substantial 10-year progress since 2011 when 28% of
hospitals and 34% of physicians had adopted an EHR”, as seen in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1
Submission by empirical studies is that 70% report efficiency gains are associated with EMR
implementation [12].
This study’s objective is to evaluate the impact of EMR implementation on clinical efficiency and
identify evidence-based strategies to maximize improvement. It aims to:
1. Quantify progress made in clinical performance metrics after EMR deployment e.g. order
turnaround time, documentation time, and medical workflow throughput
2. Tally specific EMR features and implementation practices with the expanse and varieties of gains
3. Recommend practices for long-term effectiveness in clinical settings
LITERATURE REVIEW
Key studies have in the past demonstrated several efficiency gains from Electronic Medical Record
(EMR) adoption, especially in documentation speed, lab result turn around, and cost savings, as seen
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 3227
www.rsisinternational.org
below:
Documentation speed and accurate interpretation
Traditional paper records have been replaced by standardized digital templates and point-of-care data
entry, with EMRs significantly improving documentation speed. Research [13] has shown that nurses
saved between 23.5% to 24.5% of time spent on documentation when using bedside or central station
electronic systems, which allowed for direct and swift patient care.
After a review of evidence, there has been found significant positive impacts of EMR on efficiency and
quality of healthcare delivery [14], stating thus, “We reviewed the recent literature on health information
technology to determine its effect on outcomes, including quality, efficiency, and provider satisfaction. We
found that 92 percent of the recent articles on health information technology reached conclusions that
were positive overall. We also found that the benefits of the technology are beginning to emerge in smaller
practices and organizations, as well as in large organizations that were early adopters.”
[15] also evaluated results of other studies and surmised increased time efficiency and improved
adherence to guidelines when EMRs matched clinical processes. It further identified information retrieval
and documentation as typical efficiency focus points. Thus, the adoption of EMR has drastically reduced
documentation time, as the implementation of structured formats and templates reported faster
completion.
Also, another study found out that EMR documentation increased clarity in communication, reduced
errors from illegible handwriting, and heightened ease in medical history access and retrieval [16]. [17]
stated that, “ePrescriptions are much clearer compared to paper prescriptions, which may contain
illegible handwriting”. Also backing this up is a research which averred that EMR “... was perceived to
have improved patient safety by enhancing readability of patient notes”, also highlighting that,
“healthcare providers were less anxious about misunderstandings and mistakes about their planned
orders for clients being carried out correctly” [18].
In a landmark national study, health professionals who adopted virtual co-documentation reported to have
reduced their note-writing time by about 21%, reduced EMR time outside schedule hours by 10%, just
after a training phase of 20 weeks [19]. Also in a home-care EMR implementation investigation, 90% of
health notes were completed within a significant day of post-implementation, compared to only 30%
within a seven-day window in previous times.
Similarly, time to file Medicare dropped from 100 days pre-EMR to 30 days post-EMR [20].
Laboratory Result Turnaround
By digitalizing clinic orders, documentation and reducing wait times, EMRs are helping to quicken lab
result processing. It is reported that there was a “decreased turnaround time by 37% for the emergency
department (ED) door to physician and total ED waiting time by 44%” and that the most obvious
outcomes were “improved quality of care and enhanced efficiency” [21]. This essentially enhances
patient throughput and enhances the speed administered to clinical decision-making. Consistent
reductions in test TAT and frequency of dispensable orders as a result of moving order entry from paper to
electronic systems, have been recorded in reviews of pathology and CPOE literature [22].
Cost Savings And Resource Efficiency
According to studies, the implementation of EMR has led to downright saving of costs, directly or
indirectly. It was found that there were reduced hospital stays and adverse events were prevented due to
EMR efficiency in workflows and patient safety gains [23]. National scale effects and estimated potential
annual savings were modeled by Hillestad and the RAND team, focusing on reducing duplicate testing,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 3228
www.rsisinternational.org
fewer adverse drug events and faster care processes. The RAND technical report presented scenario
estimates and assumptions behind them [24].
In Malawi, a cost modeling study was used to estimate an annual cost savings of US$284,395, courtesy of
EMR-caused reductions in stay duration, laboratory use, and transcription time. By the third year, their
model resulted in net financial gain relative to implementation and upkeep costs [25]. Also in ambulatory
surgical subspecialty clinic in the
United State, it was found that documentation per patient dropped drastically from US$7.60 to US$4.51,
as a result of EMR over 8 years. Thus, as the number of patients encountered grew, revenue per provider
increased measurably [26].
Conflicting Evidence Regarding Initial Productivity Dips And User Burnout
Evidence currently available is conflicting regarding the impact of EMR on initial productivity dips and
user burnout. This has raised critical concerns among health professionals and researchers.
Initial Productivity Dips
There has been a frequent decline in productivity after EMR implementation, as some studies have
articulated. According to them, this is due to learning how to adapt to new digital processes. A study
stated that although some ambulatory care physicians faced increased documentation time and low
patient-facing time, others reported a downhill drop of productivity the first 6 months post-EMR
implementation, between 20-30% [27]. It is noted that this was caused by data entry challenges, system
navigation complexities, and frequent interruptions in fixed routines. Training gaps, incomplete workflow
redesign are known to also increase the duration of patient encounter.
Another AHRQ review of ambulatory services recorded that work Relative Value Units [RVUs] fell about
8% six months into the implementation, but experiencing partial pickup to about 4% at the 12th month
[28]. Therefore, [29] argued that these inefficiencies may badly influence time management, overall
revenue and even patient throughput.
User Burnout
Apart from dips in initial productivity, burn out is also recorded as an adverse effect of EMR implementation.
Nova Scotia’s Burnout Working Group reviewed 44 articles and defined Burnout Syndrome
as emotional exhaustion which “is the feeling of being depleted, indifferent and over-extended”,
depersonalization which “involves a reduced attachment toward one’s work or a patient to whom one is
providing care” and lack of professional or personal accomplishment which “is described as a lack of feeling
of achievement in one’s work” [30]. As to physicians and EMR use, the study cited inadequate time and
quality of training, EMR usability, lack of user-centered design, high volume of inbox notifications, alert
fatigue, and increase of time spent in the EMR, as causes of burnout.
As seen in Figure 2 below, inability to navigate system quickly and interference with patientclinician
relationship contributes to clinician stress and burnout, which in turn negatively impacts productivity.
Figure 2:
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 3229
www.rsisinternational.org
This, despite the inherent values of EMR, is a wakeup call for better system redesign, improved user
interfaces, and organizational measures to reduce the risk of burnout.
Review Of Meta-Analyses on Emr-Related Error Reduction
Evidence of the significant reduction of healthcare errors have been presented by several meta-analyses,
to improve overall patient safety and care quality.
Medication Errors And Adverse Drug Events
A group of researchers reviewed 47 studies out of 23,398 and found that EMR implementation coincided
with visible reduction in medication errors. The risk ratio [RR] for medication errors was 0.46 [95% CI,
0.38 to 0.55; P<0.001], indicating nearly about 54% reduction in errors compared to other situations
without EMR usage. Also, in the case of adverse drug events [ADEs], a significant decline was witnessed
in an RR of 0.66 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.99; P=0.045]. The meta-analyses have also recorded an increase in
documentation time reductions and guideline compliance, which contributed to safer prescribing practices
[31]. Another systematic review which reviewed adverse drug events and medication errors across
various hospital settings stressed the role of decision support and local workflow alignment in producing
the largest gains [32].
Documentation Errors
It was highlighted in a systemic review that EMR adoption reduces the chances of documentation errors
in outpatient settings by providing standardized templates and centralized record keeping. Patient
identification, prescription details, and medication doses were the factors related to reduction in errors.
This decrease has thus resulted in better clinical decisions and safer care environments [33].
Operational And Clinical Effectiveness
From a meta-analysis, evidence was provided which summarized that EMR systems enhance operational
effectiveness by reducing errors across documentation, test ordering processes, and medication
prescription. The more the improvements, the higher the enhancement of patient safety standards and
reduction of adverse events. The study further emphasized the need for EMR features to be strictly
tailored, to maximize error reduction benefits [34].
Emerging Evidence on Mortality and Readmission
Although EMRs have successfully reduced a wide range of errors, meta-analyses show mixed results on
their impact on readmission rates and patient mortality. While not providing consistent mortality
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 3230
www.rsisinternational.org
reduction, a study has nonetheless suggested indirect benefits through improved care processes. There is a
need for more in-depth research to create strong and irrefutable links between EMR-driven error
reductions and long-term clinical outcomes [35].
The limitations of these meta-analyses are clear. The evaluations record high heterogeneity in study
designs, follow-up duration, and outcome definitions. While some trials used randomized designs, others
used pre-post designs without contemporaneous controls. Thus, the bias towards successful
EMRimplementations most likely inflated pooled effect sizes. Thus, meta-analysts recommend
standardized metrics and no longer follow-up to judge sustained safety gains [32].
Framework For Measuring Emr Success Delone And Mclean Information Systems [Is] Success Model
First introduced in 1992 and updated in 2003, this model is one widely used framework for evaluating
success of health information systems, and in the case of this study, Electronic Medical Records [EMRs].
It identifies six interrelated perspectives of information systems’ success including system quality,
information quality, service quality, use, user satisfaction, and net benefits [36].
1. System quality: This focuses on EMR performance, as to ease of use, reliability, response time,
and integration with existing workflows.
2. Information quality: This relates to completeness of patient data, accuracy, timeliness within
EMR systems.
3. Service quality: This assesses support services available to users, such as technical assistance and
workforce training.
4. Use: This measures the implementation of EMR systems by clinicians.
5. User satisfaction: This captures the perception of clinicians about the value, usability, and
efficiency of the EMR system.
6. Net benefits: This represents the total value of EMR systems, including better patient outcomes,
improved clinical efficiency, and reduced medical errors.
The advantages of using this model is that beyond the technical measures, it provides a holistic evaluation
by linking system performance to user experience and organizational impact. It also enables identification
of weak points in EMR implementation. Finally, it helps make possible the synthesis of findings across
various settings by offering a standardized framework for cross-study comparisons.
Application To Emr Evaluation
This model has been used by researchers to better comprehend EMRs and their impact in clinical settings.
Take for example studies that suggest that user satisfaction and use are significantly impacted by
information quality and system quality [37]. Seamless interoperability with laboratory and pharmacy
systems, reliable data entry interfaces, and decision-support alert systems have driven higher satisfaction
and continuous use.
The Net benefits in EMR studies typically focus on efficiency outcomes including improved patient
throughput, lower duplication of test results, reduction in medication errors, and increase in
documentation speed. Thus, the causal pathways of this model will help the comprehension of reasons
why EMRs sometimes fail to deliver expected improvements e.g. why weak service quality [inadequate
support, limited training] and poor system quality as in slow interface and frequent downtimes leads to
clinician dissatisfaction and frustration.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 3231
www.rsisinternational.org
Identification Of Gaps
There has been found a gap in existing literature concerning the need for more longitudinal evidence that
demonstrates sustained efficiency gains from EMR implementation.
Current Evidence
The majority of studies concerning EMR efficiency focus on the short to medium term. They typically
gauge results shortly after a system has been rolled out or in the first year or two. For example, it
examined that the evidence and reported mixed results regarding documentation time. Immediate effects
have been demonstrated in some studies, although longer intervals between conditions were reported in
others [13]. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality also notes that many of these findings are
based on data gathered only months after implementation. This has implications for the long-term follow
up [13].
Recent research shows that EMRs help with documentation time, patient flow, medication safety, and
reducing duplicate tests. But the problem is that we do not know how long these benefits last. For
instance, found positive effects, but the study used short follow-ups and cross-sectional data. That design
cannot capture lasting changes across different stages of adoption [12].
Importance Of Longitudinal Studies
Longitudinal studies are important here. They provide a clearer picture and track results over longer time
periods. After the initial learning curve, they demonstrate whether user proficiency increases efficiency.
They quantify the results of workflow modifications and system upgrades. They show how staffing and
organizational policies affect performance over time. They also assist us in determining whether longterm
benefits are diminished by problems like user burnout or whether gains are sustainable.
The problem is that conducting these studies is challenging. Strong designs to account for confounders, years
of data collection, and work to maintain participant engagement are all necessary. However, compared to
short-term studies, the evidence they present is far more trustworthy.
Therefore, multi-year, multi-site designs should be the main focus of future research. It is important to
monitor consistent metrics like medication errors, duplicate test orders, patient throughput, and
documentation time. Important context would also be added by including qualitative research to
document how users' experiences evolve over time.
METHODOLOGY
Study Design
A qualitative systematic review is used in this study. It focuses on published systematic reviews and
meta-analyses of the use of electronic medical records (EMRs). Interpreting the impact of EMRs on
clinical efficiency is the goal. Documentation time, patient throughput, turnaround time for laboratory
results, medication errors, and duplicate test orders are important areas of interest. The study identifies
common advantages, difficulties, and evidence gaps by referencing previous reviews.
Data Sources And Search Strategy
Sources of Information and Search Methods The search was organized and conducted using the
following major databases: CINAHL, Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus. "Electronic Medical
Record" or "Electronic Health Record" was combined with "meta-analysis" or "systematic review" in the
search terms. Additionally, phrases like "efficiency," "documentation time," "turnaround time," "duplicate
test orders," and "medication errors" were employed.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 3232
www.rsisinternational.org
Inclusion And Exclusion Criteria
Studies that evaluated the use of EMRs or EHRs in clinical settings or hospitals had to be systematic
reviews or meta-analyses. Additionally, they had to report efficiency-related outcomes like medication
errors, duplicate tests, turnaround times, throughput, and documentation. Only English-language,
peerreviewed research was taken into account. Studies that evaluated unrelated technologies like
telehealth without EMR integration, were narrative reviews without systematic methods, or solely
concentrated on patient satisfaction or financial outcomes were disqualified.
Data Extraction
Key information was extracted using a standardized template. Authors, year, journal, review type, and
number of studies covered were among the data points. Notable were clinical settings and EMR features
like interoperability, order entry, and decision support. Results were documented along with any obstacles
that were found, such as difficulties with integration or training. The authors' noted limitations and gaps
were also recorded.
Data Analysis
The six-step method developed by Braun and Clarke was followed in thematic analysis. First, every
analysis. First, every review result was carefully read. "Shorter documentation time" and "initial
productivity dip" were examples of outcome statements that were coded. The codes were then categorized
according to themes such as user burden, productivity challenges, efficiency gains, and error reduction.
To find trends and distinctions, themes from various studies were examined.
A narrative synthesis that connected the themes to the study's goal was the last phase.
Quality Assessment
The AMSTAR 2 checklist was used to evaluate each included review [38]. This made sure that the search
was thorough, that there was no chance of bias, and that the reporting was clear. The synthesis only
included reviews with a quality rating of moderate to high.
Trustworthiness And Rigor
The criteria and search procedure were thoroughly documented to increase credibility. The studies were
independently screened and coded by two reviewers. Any disagreements were resolved through
discussion. Thematic saturation was sought so that themes were supported by multiple reviews.
Ethical Considerations
This study analyzed published literature and did not involve human participants. Therefore, ethics
approval was not necessary. Every source was correctly acknowledged and cited.
Thematic Findings
Finding I
The development and impact of implementing electronic health records on healthcare quality: a
systematic review and meta-analysis by Ge et al. [39] is cited in this section. The study compiled data on
the effects of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) on healthcare outcomes and quality in various settings
and diseases.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 3233
www.rsisinternational.org
1. Impact On Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes
EHR adoption enhanced a number of disease-specific quality indicators, according to Ge et al. For
instance, there was a 3–13% improvement in hemoglobin A1c testing for diabetes, breast cancer
screening, chlamydia testing, and colorectal cancer screening. Significant changes were also reported by
doctors. Approximately 82 percent reported fewer medication errors, 92 percent reported improved
communication with patients and coworkers, and 82 percent said EHRs improved decision-making. The
review also demonstrated improvements in the management of chronic diseases. EHRs facilitated more
precise diabetes documentation, medication modifications, and lifestyle guidance.
2. Health Care Utilization and Process Measures
EHRs made it easier for providers to monitor patients. They identified problems like medication
nonadherence and assisted with appointment follow-ups. Stronger continuity of care resulted from this.
The narrative evidence indicated better data capture and less duplication of services due to easier record
access and sharing, even though pooled analysis was limited by differences across studies.
3. Patient-Reported Outcomes and Satisfaction
According to certain studies, using EHRs increased patient satisfaction. Patients valued having access to
portals and personal records, improved coordination, and more transparent communication. An important
distinction was brought to light by the review. Results and satisfaction increase when patients actively
participate in their digital health records by communicating with providers or entering data. It was less
successful to use passively, such as just looking at records.
4. Technology-Related Outcomes: Usability and Engagement
The usability of the systems also affected the impact of EHRs. Obstacles included alert fatigue and
complicated interfaces. The review underscored the importance of provider and patient engagement.
More trustworthy evidence was produced by studies with more robust methodologies, highlighting the
significance of meticulous planning and assessment in subsequent EHR research.
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
1. Clinical Quality Gains
Clinical quality is unquestionably supported by EHRs, particularly for chronic conditions. They help
providers adhere to evidence-based guidelines and improve the consistency of preventive screening.
These gains are reinforced by features like documentation prompts and reminders within EHR platforms.
The significance of these systems in daily care is demonstrated by the high percentage of providers who
report safer prescribing and better clinical decisions.
2. Patient Engagement and Satisfaction
One important element that stood out was patient engagement. Self-management and adherence to
treatment were promoted by active engagement with digital records. This enhanced patient satisfaction
with care in addition to improving results. These results imply that patient interaction features ought to be
a standard component of EHR design.
3. Health Service Efficiency and Utilization
EHRs also enhanced the utilization of health services. They promoted follow-ups, decreased the number
of missed appointments, and enhanced continuity throughout care episodes. Costs could be decreased and
resource allocation enhanced with fewer redundant tests and more efficient coordination. However, the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 3234
www.rsisinternational.org
degree of these advantages differed based on the system's level of maturity and the degree to which EHRs
interacted with other platforms.
4. Barriers And Technological Challenges
The full potential of EHRs was diminished by usability problems, alert fatigue, and inadequate training.
These obstacles have the potential to irritate users and interfere with workflow. The review emphasized
that in order to optimize benefits and minimize disruptions, EHR design should prioritize user-centered
features, customization, and simplicity.
Limitations
1. Heterogeneity: Direct comparison and meta-analysis were challenging due to the studies'
significant differences in disease focus, intervention specifics, and outcome measures.
2. Publication Bias and Quality Issues: Positive findings might have had a higher chance of being
published, but some of the included studies were of poor quality.
3. Limited Quantitative Synthesis: The ability to combine data into a single analysis was limited by
disparities in reporting.
4. Patient Population Diversity: The findings' generalizability was constrained by the differences in
outcomes by patient age, disease burden, and socioeconomic background.
Finding Ii
This section provides an overview of Salem Albagmi's 2021 systematic review, which examined how well
EMR implementation reduced patient waiting times and documentation errors in outpatient clinics.
Twelve studies published between 2005 and 2020 were selected from 93 articles in accordance with
PRISMA guidelines. Reducing documentation errors and patient wait times in outpatient settings were the
two main goals of these studies.
1. Reduction Of Medical And Documentation Errors
EMRs have been shown in numerous studies to reduce documentation errors. [40] discovered that the use
of EMRs reduced prescribing errors. EMRs reduced medication errors and enhanced decision-making,
provider communication, and timely record access, according to [41]. Similar gains in prenatal care were
reported by [42], who connected the use of EMRs to fewer documentation errors. EMR-supported
interdisciplinary communication decreased medication errors at admission, according to [43].
Computerized provider order entry (CPOE) was linked to reduced error rates by [44]. Electronic ordering
decreased patient harm from avoidable documentation errors, according to [45].
2. Reduction Of Patient Waiting Times
There was conflicting evidence regarding wait times. EMR-linked web booking reduced the average
registration time from 5.5 minutes to less than 1 minute, according to [46]. Shorter wait times following
EMR upgrades were reported by [47]. After EMRs were implemented, [48] demonstrated increased
efficiency in outpatient clinics by applying queuing theory. Additionally, [49] noted improved scheduling,
easier access to test results, and a more seamless patient flow. However, [50] discovered the opposite.
They stated that longer documentation times caused patient care to be delayed, demonstrating that not all
EMR systems automatically cut down on waiting.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 3235
www.rsisinternational.org
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
1. Efficiency Gains and Error Reduction
Overall, the data points to EMRs as a tool for lowering medical errors, particularly prescription errors.
This improves patient safety in all outpatient clinics. EMRs allow clinicians to quickly access previous
test results, ensure accurate medication lists, and facilitate allergy checks. These characteristics lessen
typical mistakes in paper-based systems. Additionally, they enhance provider-to-provider communication,
guaranteeing safer, better-coordinated care for patients.
Additionally, fewer medication errors reduce patient harm and healthcare system costs.
2. Patient Waiting Time: Mixed Outcomes
Results for waiting times were less reliable. EMR-driven scheduling tools, quicker data access, and
improved workflow were advantageous to certain clinics. Longer documentation requirements caused
delays for others in the early stages of implementation. This demonstrates how much results depend on
the context. EMRs have an impact on patient waiting times
depending on clinic size, patient volume, and staff skill level.
3. EMR System Characteristics and User Experience
EMR systems are not all created equal. While advanced features like CPOE and decision support tools
increase safety, if the design is complicated, they may also slow down providers. Familiarity and training
are essential. While ineffective usability or a lack of interoperability limits benefits and causes workflow
bottlenecks, seasoned users frequently adapt well and experience efficiency gains.
Limitations
1. Selection Bias and Generalizability: The results may not be applicable to all outpatient care
settings because the majority of studies concentrated on specialty outpatient clinics.
2. Diverse Study Designs: It was challenging to directly compare the results because the included
studies ranged from surveys to retrospective reviews.
3. Incomplete Data: Deeper analysis is limited because many studies did not separate results by
clinic characteristics or patient demographics.
4. Narrow Outcome Focus: Other significant outcomes like cost-effectiveness, patient satisfaction,
or diagnostic accuracy were not included in the review; instead, it solely looked at documentation
errors and waiting times.
5. Publication Bias: Studies with neutral or negative results might not have been published, as
indicated by the preponderance of positive findings.
6. Changing Technology: Older systems might not accurately represent the usability and
effectiveness of contemporary EMRs, as the review encompassed studies conducted over a 15year
period.
CONCLUSION
Adoption of Electronic Medical Records (EMR) and Electronic Health Records (EHR) results in
significant improvements in safety and efficiency, according to evidence from extensive meta-analyses
and systematic reviews. Patient safety and workflow dependability are directly enhanced by these
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 3236
www.rsisinternational.org
systems' constant reduction of medication errors and documentation errors. By integrating
decisionsupport tools into routine practice, they also improve adherence to clinical guidelines and
increase the consistency of evidence-based care.
EMR use has also been shown in several studies to reduce patient wait times and enhance outpatient
clinic operations. However, these enhancements differ depending on the context. Benefits are obvious in
some situations but less obvious in others because of things like staff workload, system architecture, or
implementation tactics.
It's still unknown how EHRs and EMRs affect patient mortality. Numerous clinical,
organizational, and social factors that go far beyond the layout of health record systems influence survival
outcomes. Nevertheless, data suggests that well-integrated systems with organizational commitment,
decision-support features, and good user training have the potential to revolutionize efficiency and safety.
Benefits are contingent on system quality, user proficiency, and healthcare organizations' readiness to
modify workflows. The findings of various studies differ, reflecting variations in the contexts of health
systems, technological maturity, and user engagement levels. Health care providers, legislators, and tech
developers must prioritize evidence-based implementation, long-term workforce training, and ongoing
system optimization if they hope to see significant results.
To determine whether the short-term gains can be maintained, more research is required.
Multiinstitutional, longitudinal studies are particularly crucial. These should look at how systems impact
clinician productivity and satisfaction, how efficiency changes over time, and how they influence more
general outcomes like cost-effectiveness and patient experience. To sum up, EMR and EHR systems are a
significant advancement in the provision of healthcare. Their effects on efficiency and safety are widely
known. However, continuous cooperation between organizational culture, training, and technology is
necessary to realize their full potential.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The best way to achieve the efficiency benefits of EMR adoption is through gradual, structured
implementation that is backed by ongoing workforce development. Prior research has demonstrated that
hurried or poorly thought-out adoption can result in early loss of productivity and clinician discontent.
The following tactics are advised:
Phased Rollouts
Large-scale, one-day system cutovers should be avoided by healthcare organizations. Before a
systemwide launch, phased implementation enables particular clinics or units to make the transition first,
providing a chance to find workflow bottlenecks and technical issues. This lowers the possibility of both
financial loss and service interruption. Every step should be guided by quantifiable benchmarks, such as
staff training rates, data validation checks, and usability user feedback. Staged approaches, according to
studies, result in quicker workflow stabilization and easier staff adjustment.
User Training and Change Management
One of the best indicators of successful implementation is training. Programs need to cover role-specific
tasks and workflow redesign in addition to system navigation. Clinicians, nurses, and administrative
personnel require customized instructions that demonstrate how the system facilitates their daily tasks.
Onboarding shouldn't be the end of training. Updates linked to new features, refresher courses, and
ongoing education are crucial. Clear communication is also essential for effective change management.
Early in the process, organizations should lay out the objectives of the project, the difficulties that are
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 3237
www.rsisinternational.org
expected, and the long-term advantages that are anticipated. Involving clinician champions to mentor
peers and provide examples of best practices fosters acceptance and lowers resistance.
Usability Audits and Optimization
The effectiveness of EMRs should be routinely evaluated after they are implemented.
Measurable insights can be obtained through tools like workflow time studies and the System Usability
Scale (SUS). System improvements should be guided by a systematic review of clinician feedback. It is
important to keep a close eye on vendor updates to avoid any new inefficiencies. Governance committees
are established by many prosperous companies to supervise optimization cycles. These cycles frequently
result in longer-lasting gains in patient satisfaction, quicker processing of test results, and faster
documentation speed.
Integration Of Decision-Support Tools
Clinical decision-making is accelerated, medication errors are avoided, and redundant testing is decreased
when decision-support features are properly designed. Alerts and suggestions need to be relevant,
context-sensitive, and simple to follow in order to be effective. Alert fatigue can be caused by too
frequent or generic alerts, which reduces the usefulness of decision support. Priority should be given to
interoperability with outside pharmacies, registries, and labs. Systems based on standardized data
formats, like HL7 FHIR, are more suited to facilitate information sharing and boost productivity
throughout the care spectrum.
Implementation Roadmap
These tactics work together to create a cycle of planning, carrying out, and improving over time. Phased
rollouts that minimize disruption are the first step in a successful roadmap. Targeted training that follows
clinical workflows, continuous usability testing, and system optimization serve to reinforce it. Integrating
decision support improves efficiency and safety results. Importantly, rather than being viewed as a
onetime IT project, these activities ought to be budgeted as a long-term investment. Organizations that
adopt this mindset tend to achieve sustained gains in safety, efficiency, and user satisfaction.
REFERENCES
1. International Organization for Standardization. (2012). Health Informatics—Capacity-based
eHealth architecture roadmap—Part 1: Overview of national eHealth initiatives (ISO/TR
146391:2012(en)). Geneva, Switzerland: ISO.
2. Greenhalgh, J., Dalkin, S., Gibbons, E., Wright, J., Valderas, J. M., Meads, D., et al. (2018). How do
aggregated patient-reported outcome measures data stimulate health care improvement? A realist
synthesis. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 23(1), 57–65. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1355819617740925
3. Kohli, R., & Tan, S. L. (2016). Electronic health records: How can IS researchers contribute to
transforming healthcare? MIS Quarterly, 40(3), 553–573. https://doi.org/ 10.25300/ MISQ/ 2016/
40.3.02
4. Wright, G., O’Mahony, D., & Cilliers, L. (2017). Electronic health information systems for public
health care in South Africa: A review of current operational systems. Journal of Health Informatics
in Africa, 4(1), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.12856/JHIA-2017-v4-i1-164
5. Zwaan, L., & Hautz, W. E. (2019). Bridging the gap between uncertainty, confidence and diagnostic
accuracy: Calibration is key. BMJ Quality & Safety, 28(5), 352–355. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-
2018-009078
6. Dickerson, A. (2023). Nurses’ experiences transitioning from paper to electronic health records: A
pilot study (Doctoral dissertation). University of Mount Olive.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 3238
www.rsisinternational.org
7. Neves, A. L., Freise, L., Laranjo, L., Carter, A. W., Darzi, A., & Mayer, E. (2020). Impact of
providing patients access to electronic health records on quality and safety of care: A systematic
review and meta-analysis. BMJ Quality & Safety, 29(12), 965–967.
8. Ohuabunwa, E. C., Sun, J., Jean Jubanyik, K., & Wallis, L. A. (2015). Electronic medical records in
low to middle income countries: The case of Khayelitsha Hospital, South Africa. African Journal of
Emergency Medicine, 6(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afjem.2015.06.003
9. Weeks, R. V. (2013). Electronic health records: Managing the transformation from a paper-based to
an electronic system. Journal of Contemporary Management, 10, 135–155.
10. Hillestad, R., Bigelow, J., Bower, A., Girosi, F., Meili, R., Scoville, R., & Taylor, R. (2005). Can
electronic medical record systems transform health care? Potential health benefits, savings, and
costs. Health Affairs, 24(5), 1103–1117. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.24.5.1103
11. Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy. (n.d.). National trends in hospital and physician adoption
of electronic health records. Retrieved from https://www.healthit.gov/data/quickstats/national-
trends-hospital-and-physician-adoptionelectronic-health-records
12. Uslu, A. M., & Stausberg, J. (2008). Value of the electronic patient record: An analysis of the
literature. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 41(5), 675–682. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j. jbi.2008
.02.001
13. Poissant, L., Pereira, J., Tamblyn, R., & Kawasumi, Y. (2005). The impact of electronic health
records on time efficiency of physicians and nurses: A systematic review. Journal of the American
Medical Informatics Association, 12(5), 505–516. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M1700
14. Buntin, M. B., Burke, M. F., Hoaglin, M. C., & Blumenthal, D. (2011). The benefits of health
information technology: A review of the recent literature shows predominantly positive results.
Health Affairs, 30(3), 464–471. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0178
15. Campanella, P., Lovato, E., Marone, C., Fallacara, L., Mancuso, A., & Ricciardi, W. (2016). The
impact of electronic health records on healthcare quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
European Journal of Public Health, 26(1), 60–64. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckv122
16. Uslu, A., & Stausberg, J. (2021). Value of the electronic medical record for hospital care: Update
from the literature. Journal of Medical Systems, 45(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-020-
01656-9
17. Tubaishat, A. (2019). The effect of electronic health records on patient safety: A qualitative
exploratory study. Informatics for Health and Social Care, 44(1), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17538157.2017.1398753
18. Takian, A., Sheikh, A., & Barber, N. (2012). We are bitter, but we are better off: Case study of the
implementation of an electronic health record system into a mental hospital in England. BMC
Health Services Research, 12, 484. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-484
19. Apathy, N. C., Holmgren, A. J., & Cross, D. A. (2024). Physician EHR time and visit volume
following adoption of team-based documentation support. JAMA Internal Medicine, 184(10), 1212–
1221. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.4123
20. Sockolow, P. S., Bowles, K. H., Adelsberger, M. C., Chittams, J. L., & Liao, C. (2014). Impact of
homecare electronic health record on timeliness of clinical documentation, reimbursement, and
patient outcomes. Annals of Clinical Informatics, 1(1), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.4338/ACI-
201312-RA-0106
21. Moon, C. M., Hills, R., & Demiris, G. (2018). Understanding optimisation processes of electronic
health records (EHRs) in select leading hospitals: A qualitative study. Journal of Innovation in
Health Informatics, 25(2), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.14236/jhi.v25i2.1011
22. Niazkhani, Z., Pirnejad, H., Berg, M., & Aarts, J. (2009). The impact of computerized provider
order entry systems on inpatient clinical workflow: A literature review. Journal of the American
Medical Informatics Association, 16(4), 539–549. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M2419
23. Modis, S., et al. (2022). The value of electronic health records since 2000: A review of financial and
clinical outcomes. Systematic Review. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9555331/
24. Buntin, M. B., Burke, M. F., Hoaglin, M. C., & Blumenthal, D. (2005). The benefits of health
information technology: A review of the recent literature shows predominantly positive results.
RAND Monograph MG-410.
25. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG410.pdf
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 3239
www.rsisinternational.org
26. Driessen, J., Cioffi, M., Alide, N., Landis-Lewis, Z., Gamadzi, G., Gadabu, O. J., & Douglas, G.
(2013). Modeling return on investment for an electronic medical record system in Lilongwe,
Malawi. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 20(4), 743–748.
https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001242
27. Patil, M., Puri, L., & Gonzalez, C. M. (2008). Productivity and cost implications of implementing
electronic medical records into an ambulatory surgical subspecialty clinic. Urology, 71(2), 173–177.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2007.09.024
28. Agha, L. (2014). The effects of health information technology on the costs and quality of medical
care. Journal of Health Economics, 34(2), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2013.12.005
29. Fleming, N. (2011). Impact of health information technology on primary care workflow and
financial measures. Grant number: R03 HS 018220. http://healthit.ahrq.gov/R03HS018220-
01Flemingfinalreport2011
30. Shanafelt, T. D., Dyrbye, L. N., Sinsky, C., et al. (2016). Relationship between clerical burden and
characteristics of the electronic environment with physician burnout and professional satisfaction.
Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 91(7), 836–848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.05.007
31. Thompson, K., & Pickup, S. (n.d.). EMR-related burnout: What does the evidence suggest? Digital
Health Canada. https://digitalhealthcanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/EMR-Related-
Burnout.pdf
32. Campanella, P., Lovato, E., Marone, C., Fallacara, L., Mancuso, A., Ricciardi, W., & Specchia, M.
L. (2016). The impact of electronic health records on healthcare quality: a systematic review and
meta-analysis. European Journal of Public Health, 26(1), 60–64. https://doi.org/10.1093/ eurpub/
ckv122
33. Nuckols, T. K., Smith-Spangler, C., Morton, S. C., Asch, S. M., Patel, V. M., Anderson, L. J.,
Deichsel, E. L., & Shekelle, P. G. (2014). The effectiveness of computerized order entry at reducing
preventable adverse drug events and medication errors in hospital settings: A systematic review and
meta-analysis. Systematic Reviews, 3, 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-56
34. Albagmi, S. (2021). The effectiveness of EMR implementation regarding reducing documentation
errors and waiting time for patients in outpatient clinics: A systematic review. F1000Research.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8738966/
35. Chimbo, B., Tsopra, R., Tchouaket, E., & Tchouaket, E. (2024). The effects of electronic health
records on medical error reduction: Extension of the DeLone and McLean Information System
Success Model. Frontiers in Digital Health. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11525084/
36. Syahbaniar, D., Tamtomo, D. G., & Murti, B. (2022). Meta-analysis: The effect of electronic health
record utilization on mortality and readmission. Journal of Health Policy and Management, 07(02),
103–111. https://doi.org/10.26911/thejhpm.2022.07.02.02
37. DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems
success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9–30.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748
38. Petter, S., DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2008). Measuring information systems success:
models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. European Journal of Information Systems,
17(3), 236–263. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2008.15
39. Shea, B. J., Reeves, B. C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., Moher, D., Tugwell, P.,
Welch, V., Kristjansson, E., Henry, D. A., & Grimshaw, J. (2017). AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal
tool for systematic reviews that include randomized or non-randomized studies of healthcare
interventions. BMJ, 358, j4008. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008
40. Ge, S., et al. (2022). The development and impact of adopting electronic health records on
healthcare quality: systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Systems & Reform.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hcs2.21
41. Priestman, W., Sridharan, S., & Vigne, H. (2018). What to expect from electronic patient record
system implementation: lessons learned from published evidence. Journal of Innovation in Health
Informatics, 25(2), 92–104. https://doi.org/10.14236/jhi.v25i2.1007
42. DesRoches, C. M., Campbell, E. G., Rao, S. R., Donelan, K., Ferris, T. G., Jha, A., Kaushal, R.,
Levy, D. E., Rosenbaum, S., Shields, A., & Blumenthal, D. (2008). Electronic health records in
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 3240
www.rsisinternational.org
ambulatory care—A national survey of physicians. New England Journal of Medicine, 359(1), 50–
60. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa0802005
43. George, C., & Bernstein, P. S. (2009). Use of electronic medical record systems in obstetrics.
Obstetrics & Gynecology Clinics of North America, 36(1), 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ogc.2009.01.007
44. Agrawal, A., & Wu, W. Y. (2009). Reducing medication errors and improving systems reliability
using an electronic medication reconciliation system. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and
Patient Safety, 35(2), 106–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1553-7250(09)35014-3
45. Radley, D. C., Wasserman, M. R., Olsho, L. E., Shoemaker, S., Spranca, M. D., & Bradshaw, B.
(2013). Reduction in medication errors in hospitals due to adoption of computerized provider order
entry systems. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 20(3), 470–476.
https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001241
46. Schwartzberg, D., Ivanovic, S., Patel, S., Bailey, J., & Ivanovic, J. (2015). We thought we would be
perfect: Medication errors before and after the initiation of computerized physician order entry.
Journal of Surgical Research, 198(1), 108–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2015.03.004
47. Jabour, A. M. (2020). The impact of electronic health records on the duration of patients’ visits:
Time and motion study. JMIR Medical Informatics, 8(2), e16502. https://doi.org/10.2196/16502
48. AlSarheed, A. H. (2016). The impact of enhancing outpatient clinic management software in
reducing waiting time in Saudi hospitals (Doctoral dissertation). Prince Sultan University.
49. Cho, K. W., Kim, S. M., Chae, Y. M., et al. (2017). Application of queuing theory to the analysis of
changes in outpatients’ waiting times in hospitals introducing EMR. Healthcare Informatics
Research, 23(1), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2017.23.1.35
50. Noraziani, K., Nurul’Ain, A., Azhim, M. Z., et al. (2013). An overview of electronic medical record
implementation in healthcare system: Lessons to learn. World Applied Sciences Journal, 25(2), 323–
332. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.wasj.2013.25.02.2537
51. Vahdat, V., Griffin, J. A., Stahl, J. E., & Pugh, M. J. (2018). Analysis of the effects of electronic
health record implementation on timeliness of care in a dermatology clinic: A simulation study.
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 25(7), 827–832. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/
jamia/ocy024
