The Role of Electronic Health Records (Ehr) In Reducing Healthcare Costs and Improving Patient Outcomes. A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Electronic Health Records (EHR) systems have become integral to modern healthcare, playing a significant role in enhancing healthcare delivery, reducing costs, and improving patient outcomes. The increasing adoption of EHR systems across various healthcare settings provides an opportunity to evaluate their effectiveness and potential challenges. Objective: This study aims to systematically review the role of Electronic Health Records (EHR) in reducing healthcare costs and improving patient outcomes. The focus is on synthesizing evidence from peer-reviewed studies to understand the benefits, challenges, and overall effectiveness of EHR in healthcare management. Methodology: A systematic review approach was employed to identify relevant studies published between 2019 and the present. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple scientific databases, including PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and others. The studies included in the review were evaluated using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data were extracted using a standardized process. The quality of each study was assessed using appropriate assessment tools, including AMSTAR, Cochrane Risk of Bias, and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: The review revealed that EHR systems have a positive impact on reducing healthcare costs by improving efficiency, reducing administrative burdens, and minimizing errors. Additionally, EHRs contribute to enhanced patient outcomes through better care coordination, reduced medication errors, and improved clinical decision-making. However, barriers such as high system costs, lack of training, and resistance to change were identified as challenges to the widespread adoption of EHR systems. Conclusion: EHR systems play a crucial role in improving healthcare efficiency, reducing costs, and enhancing patient care. Despite the identified barriers, the evidence supports the continued adoption and improvement of EHR systems. Future research should focus on addressing the challenges associated with EHR implementation and further exploring its potential to optimize healthcare delivery across diverse settings
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".