Background: Efficient analysis of patient histories is essential for dental treatment planning. Electronic health records (EHRs) facilitate the immediate identification of risk factors, such as medication allergies and sensitivities to dental materials, thereby reducing the risk of medical errors. Objective: This study is aimed at comparing the effectiveness of an EHR interface with traditional paper medical records (PMRs) in evaluating the medical histories of dental patients. Methods: Two hundred patient records were randomly assigned to either the PMR or EHR group. Twenty dental students reviewed the records and reported the planned dental procedure for each patient. Recording and reporting times, as well as the number of oversights, were measured for both groups. Results: Students using EHRs identified critical systemic conditions more rapidly and with greater accuracy, with no oversights detected. In contrast, students using PMRs required more time and were more likely to overlook important health information. The mean number of oversights in the PMR group was significantly higher (9.3 ± 0.46, p ≤ 0.01). Conclusion: The use of EHRs in dental practice significantly improves the identification of critical systemic conditions, enhances patient safety, and increases clinical efficiency. Despite the benefits, the high costs of software acquisition, staff training, and technical support may pose challenges to widespread adoption.
A Digital Clinical Records Versus Paper Records in Dental Practice: A Comparative Study
Scarano, AntonioPrimo
;Mastrangelo, Filiberto
2025-01-01
Abstract
Background: Efficient analysis of patient histories is essential for dental treatment planning. Electronic health records (EHRs) facilitate the immediate identification of risk factors, such as medication allergies and sensitivities to dental materials, thereby reducing the risk of medical errors. Objective: This study is aimed at comparing the effectiveness of an EHR interface with traditional paper medical records (PMRs) in evaluating the medical histories of dental patients. Methods: Two hundred patient records were randomly assigned to either the PMR or EHR group. Twenty dental students reviewed the records and reported the planned dental procedure for each patient. Recording and reporting times, as well as the number of oversights, were measured for both groups. Results: Students using EHRs identified critical systemic conditions more rapidly and with greater accuracy, with no oversights detected. In contrast, students using PMRs required more time and were more likely to overlook important health information. The mean number of oversights in the PMR group was significantly higher (9.3 ± 0.46, p ≤ 0.01). Conclusion: The use of EHRs in dental practice significantly improves the identification of critical systemic conditions, enhances patient safety, and increases clinical efficiency. Despite the benefits, the high costs of software acquisition, staff training, and technical support may pose challenges to widespread adoption.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
