OBJECTIVES: Open-source Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems have gained importance. The main aim of our research is to guide organizational choice by comparing the features, functionality, and user-facing system performance of the five most popular open-source EHR systems. METHODS: We performed qualitative content analysis with a directed approach on recently published literature (2012–2017) to develop an integrated set of criteria to compare the EHR systems. The functional criteria are an integration of the literature, meaningful use criteria, and the Institute of Medicine's functional requirements of EHR, whereas the user-facing system performance is based on the time required to perform basic tasks within the EHR system. RESULTS: Based on the Alexa web ranking and Google Trends, the five most popular EHR systems at the time of our study were OSHERA VistA, GNU Health, the Open Medical Record System (OpenMRS), Open Electronic Medical Record (OpenEMR), and OpenEHR. We also found the trends in popularity of the EHR systems and the locations where they were more popular than others. OpenEMR met all the 32 functional criteria, OSHERA VistA met 28, OpenMRS met 12 fully and 11 partially, OpenEHR-based EHR met 10 fully and 3 partially, and GNU Health met the least with only 10 criteria fully and 2 partially. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our functional criteria, OpenEMR is the most promising EHR system, closely followed by VistA. With regards to user-facing system performance, OpenMRS has superior performance in comparison to OpenEMR.
Electronic Health Records ; Electronic Prescribing ; Meaningful Use ; Medical Order Entry Systems ; Medical Records

PURPOSE: Although medical curricula are now better structured for integration of biomedical sciences and clinical training, most teaching and learning activities still follow the older teacher-centric discipline-specific formats. A newer pedagogical approach, known as Collaborative Learning Cases (CLCs), was adopted in the medical school to facilitate integration and collaborative learning. Before incorporating CLCs into the curriculum of year 1 students, two pilot runs using the action research method was carried out to improve the design of CLCs. METHODS: We employed the four-phase Kemmis and McTaggart's action research spiral in two cycles to improve the design of CLCs. A class of 300 first-year medical students (for both cycles), 11 tutors (first cycle), and 16 tutors (second cycle) were involved in this research. Data was collected using the 5-points Likert scale survey, open-ended questionnaire, and observation. RESULTS: From the data collected, we learned that more effort was required to train the tutors to understand the principles of CLCs and their role in the CLCs sessions. Although action research enables the faculty to improve the design of CLCs, finding the right technology tools to support collaboration and enhance learning during the CLCs remains a challenge. CONCLUSION: The two cycles of action research was effective in helping us design a better learning environment during the CLCs by clarifying tutors' roles, improving group and time management, and meaningful use of technology.
Cooperative Behavior ; Curriculum ; Education ; Health Services Research* ; Humans ; Learning* ; Meaningful Use ; Methods ; Schools, Medical ; Students, Medical ; Time Management