Comparison of summative assessments between simulated electronic health records versus traditional paper-based patient cases: A non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Electronic health records are fundamental to contemporary pharmacy practice, yet evidence supporting their use in pharmacy education is lacking. This single-center, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment evaluated whether delivering patient cases via a simulated academic EHR (aEHR) was non-inferior to a traditional paper-based format in student exam performance. METHODS: 53 third-year PharmD students at the University of British Columbia were randomized 1:1 to complete a mock summative examination using either the aEHR or paper-based case delivery, stratified by self-reported EHR comfort level. The primary outcome was mean written exam score (%). Non-inferiority was pre-specified at a margin of 14%. Adjusted linear regression was used for the primary analysis, with a multiple imputation sensitivity analysis. Student perceptions were explored through post-exam focus groups analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: 42 students (21 per group) completed the exam and were included in the primary analysis. Mean scores were 66% (SD 11) in the aEHR group and 68% (SD 10) in the paper group. The adjusted mean difference (paper minus aEHR) was -2.2% (95% CI -9.2% to +4.8%), satisfying non-inferiority but not superiority. Sensitivity analysis (n = 53) yielded consistent results (-2.3%; 95% CI -7.1% to +4.1%). Focus groups revealed initial student anxiety with the aEHR but recognized its alignment with clinical practice. DISCUSSION: These findings support the feasibility of integrating simulated EHRs into summative pharmacy assessments without compromising performance. CONCLUSION: Simulated EHRs are a non-inferior assessment medium compared with paper-based formats and represent a viable step toward technology-driven pharmacy practice environments.