Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
ZENODOarrow_drop_down
ZENODO
Other literature type . 2025
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Other literature type . 2025
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

"From Paper to Digital: A Comparative Analysis of Conventional Records and Electronic Health Records"

Authors: Prof. Lipika Maiti; Dr. Umesh Sharma;

"From Paper to Digital: A Comparative Analysis of Conventional Records and Electronic Health Records"

Abstract

Abstract: The evolution of health information systems has been a transformative force in modern healthcare delivery. Traditionally, patient data and clinical notes were maintained on paper, a method that, while familiar, presented challenges in terms of storage, retrieval, accuracy, and continuity of care. The advent of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) has reshaped this landscape, offering digitized systems that streamline documentation, improve accessibility, and enable integration across health services. This review provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of conventional paper-based records and EHRs, examining their advantages, limitations, and implications for clinical practice, patient safety, healthcare management, and policy. The article discusses the transition process, including implementation challenges, cost implications, training requirements, ethical considerations, and the role of digital records in enhancing evidence-based practice and interoperability. Findings suggest that while paper records remain familiar and low-cost, they are increasingly insufficient for the demands of modern healthcare systems. Conversely, EHRs, despite barriers to adoption, are integral to advancing patient-centered, efficient, and data-driven care. This analysis concludes that a strategic, well-supported shift to digital systems is necessary to maximize healthcare quality and safety in the 21st century.

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!