Single source – triple flow: Structured electronic data capture for pancreatic surgery patients

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background: Advancements in clinical medicine depend on state-of-the-art healthcare analytics, which require patient data from electronic health record (EHR) systems and electronic data capture (EDC). We developed and implemented an independent, yet integrated EDC system (designated IMI-EDC) in a tertiary hospital. This system ensures that clinical data are available for patient care and research while complying with regulatory standards. In this study, we compared the first cohort of IMI-EDC users against those using the predecessor paper-mediated system, measuring patient comfort and satisfaction, data quality, and facilitation of workflow facilitation. Methods: Until July 2025, more than 5000 patients were able to submit their medical history and health-related quality of life questionnaires via the IMI-EDC. All patients using tablets were surveyed regarding their user experience. Additionally, a subset of 100 EDC submissions was compared to 100 submissions via the paper-based system with respect to data completeness, correctness, clarity, and readability. Finally, the time to transfer data to the Heidelberg Pancreas Registry (HPR) research database was measured. Results: IMI-EDC was successfully implemented at our center. Approximately three-quarters (75%) of patients using tablets were comfortable with the system. Tablet users were significantly more likely to submit completed documents than those using paper (98/100 vs. 66/100), and among submitted forms, fully completed questionnaires were more frequent in the tablet group (70/98 vs. 24/66). Data transfers to the HPR were quicker for tablet submissions than for paper submissions in a small pragmatic subsample (4.2 minutes vs. 9.9 minutes; 7 tablet vs. 7 paper cases). Conclusions: IMI-EDC is satisfactory for patients and staff in terms of user experience, data completeness, and workload reduction in the setting of a high-volume surgical center.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.