Understanding and Addressing Challenges With Electronic Health Record Use in Gynecological Oncology: Cross-Sectional Survey of Multidisciplinary Professionals in the United Kingdom and Co-Design of an Integrated Informatics Platform to Support Clinical Decision-Making.

Background: Electronic health records (EHRs) are a cornerstone of modern health care delivery, but their current configuration often fragments information across systems, impeding timely and effective clinical decision-making. In gynecological oncology, where care involves complex, multidisciplinary coordination, these limitations can significantly impact the quality and efficiency of patient management. Few studies have examined how EHR systems support clinical decision-making from the perspective of end users. This study aimed to explore multiprofessional experiences of EHR use in gynecological oncology and to develop a co-designed informatics platform to improve decision-making for ovarian cancer care.

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the perspectives of health care professionals on retrieving routine clinical data from EHRs in the management of ovarian cancer and to design an integrated informatics platform that supports clinical decision-making.

Methods: We conducted a national cross-sectional survey of 92 UK-based professionals working in gynecological oncology, including oncologists, nurses, radiologists, and other specialists in ovarian cancer. The web-based questionnaire, combining quantitative and free-text responses, assessed their experiences with EHR use, focusing on information retrieval, usability challenges, perceived risks, and benefits. In parallel, a human-centered design approach involving health care professionals, data engineers, and informatics experts codeveloped a digital informatics platform that integrates structured and unstructured data from multiple clinical systems into a unified patient summary view for clinical decision-making. Natural language processing was applied to extract genomic and surgical information from free-text records, with data pipelines validated by clinicians against original clinical system sources.

Results: Among 92 respondents, 84 out of 91 (92%) routinely accessed multiple EHR systems, with 26 out of 91 (29%) using 5 or more. Notably, 16 out of 92 respondents (17%) reported spending more than 50% of their clinical time searching for patient information. Key challenges included lack of interoperability (35/141 reported challenges, 24.8%), difficulty locating critical data such as genetic results (57/85 respondents, 67%), and poor organization of information. Only 10 out of 92 professionals (11%) strongly agreed that their systems provided well-organized data for clinical use. While ease of access to patient data was a key benefit, 54 out of 90 respondents (60%) reported lacking access to comprehensive patient summaries. To address these issues, our co-designed informatics platform consolidates disparate patients' data from different EHR systems into a single visual display to support clinical decision-making and audit.

Conclusions: Current EHR systems are suboptimal for supporting complex gynecological oncology care. Our findings highlight the urgent need for integrated, user-centered clinical decision tools. Fragmentation and lack of interoperability hinder information retrieval and may compromise patient care. Our co-designed ovarian cancer informatics platform is a potential real-world solution to improve data visibility, clinical efficiency, and ultimately the quality of ovarian cancer care.