Leeds Teaching Hospitals Case Study

Introduction

Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (LTHT), one of the largest hospital groups in the UK, undertook a major digital transformation by implementing a comprehensive Electronic Health Record (EHR) system. This case study evaluates the return on investment (ROI) and efficiency outcomes of that implementation, examining costs incurred, savings and benefits achieved such as administrative savings and error reduction; challenges faced such as training, adoption barriers; and long-term impacts. The aim is to provide a clear financial and operational picture of what EHR implementation has meant for Leeds, and by extension what similar trusts might expect.

Background

Historically, the NHS has struggled with fragmented patient records and inefficient paper processes. Leeds was somewhat ahead of the curve, having developed an in-house EHR called PPM+ (Patient Pathway Manager) around the 2010s (Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, n.d.). By 2023, LTHT advanced to a more integrated system linking multiple hospitals and thousands of staff on one platform. The cost of major EHR projects is substantial; large UK trusts that implemented commercial EHRs like Epic or Cerner have spent on the order of £100-£200+ million upfront (Lawrence et al., 2025). Leeds’s journey included both development and deployment costs. In the US, academic hospital EHR implementations have cost around $500 million (£360m) (Lawrence et al., 2025), indicating the scale of investment. The expected benefits of EHRs include reduced paperwork, improved clinician efficiency, better care coordination, reduction in medical errors and medication errors, and richer data for decision-making; all contributing to ROI, although not all are directly financial.

Evaluation Metrics

Our evaluation will quantify, where possible, the initial and ongoing costs versus the realized benefits at Leeds:

• Implementation Costs: Software licensing/development, hardware, training, project management.
• Efficiency Gains: Savings in admin time – clinicians spending less time chasing paper, for instance, elimination of transcription costs, shorter lengths of stay due to improved processes, etc.
• Error Reduction and Safety: How much have medication errors or duplicate tests dropped, and does that translate to cost avoidance or fewer adverse drug events.
• Productivity Impact: After the learning curve, did the EHR improve throughput or documentation efficiency? For example, are clinic consults faster or can handle more patients? Are discharge summaries done quicker speeding bed turnover?
• User and Adoption Challenges: The initial dip in productivity during go-live, training costs, and issues like clinician burnout or workarounds which can factor into whether ROI is fully realized.
• Long-term benefits: Data availability enabling better resource planning, and whether those are leading to financial or quality returns.

By analysing Leeds’s case, we can derive strategic recommendations for maximizing ROI on EHR projects and ensuring efficiency outcomes are achieved. Now, let’s delve into the specifics.

Top UK Assignment Samples

Implementation Costs and Initial Investment

Implementing an enterprise EHR at Leeds Teaching Hospitals was a major capital project. Key cost components included:

Software and Infrastructure

Leeds opted for building on its in-house PPM+ system, which was significantly enhanced around 2019 (Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, n.d.), avoiding some licensing fees of commercial vendors, but still incurred large development costs. Additionally, LTHT invested in new servers, network upgrades, and devices, which included hundreds of computers-on-wheels, tablets for clinicians, etc (Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, 2024; Saran, 2024). In comparable trusts, initial implementation costs have been reported around $500 million (£350m) for an EHR across multiple hospitals (Lawrence et al., 2025). Leeds likely spent less due to using an in-house system with no vendor license markup, but to illustrate scale, if Cambridge’s Epic cost of £200m and UCLH’s staggering £175m is considered, Leeds, in contrast, probably invested on about £50-£100+ million in development and hardware over several years (Shah, 2015; Crouch, 2020; Hoeksma, 2021). Some of these costs may have been incremental over time instead of one lump sum.

Training and Change Management

A significant expense was training thousands of staff. Typically, training costs can be substantial; estimates are £50-£150 per hour per trainee plus backfill costs (Synodus, 2024). At Leeds, to train (say) 17,000 staff, even 4-8 hours each, easily runs into several million pounds in staff time. They had to fund super-users, training sessions, and potentially overtime to cover shifts. This is a necessary investment to reap later benefits.

Implementation Support and Downtime

During go-live, which has been in phases across 2020-2022, Leeds would have brought in extra support; either external consultants or internal ‘floorwalkers’. Go-live support can cost £200-£500 per hour for external experts (Synodus, 2024). If we assume several experts on site for weeks, that is another significant cost. Additionally, productivity loss during initial rollout, with staff being slower on new system, has an implicit cost; sometimes not counted in budgets but affects ROI timeline.

Process re-engineering and integration

Leeds had to integrate EHR with other systems such as lab, radiology, pharmacy, etc. Some costs here include developing interfaces and custom modules. For example, linking GS1 barcode tech for tracking might have been part of it (MacMillan, 2018); the GS1 case hints at linking inventory to EHR at Leeds to reduce costs (MacMillan, 2018). This likely provided ROI by reducing certain admin costs; like scanning instead of manual entry for patient ID on samples, for instance.

In total, Leeds’s EHR program likely represented one of its largest non-building investments. However, many of these are one-time or upfront costs. The trust likely justified it by expected savings and improved care.

One must note that short-term ROI in pure financial terms can be elusive initially; as observed by the Wachter Review, short-term returns are often in quality, not direct finance (Department of Health and Social Care, 2016). It is often said EHRs do not pay off immediately; cost savings may take 5-10 years to materialize as processes adapt (Department of Health and Social Care, 2016). Leeds likely anticipated this and looked at ROI in a longer horizon.

Get Assignment Help for Top Subjects

Administrative and Efficiency Outcomes

Post-implementation, Leeds has observed several efficiency improvements and administrative savings:

Paperless Savings

A straightforward gain of EHR is reduction in paper use, storage, and administrative handling. Leeds moving to digital notes eliminated costs of paper charts like printing forms, paper, physical chart storage and retrieval, etc. If each outpatient appointment previously generated a paper file that had to be pulled and delivered, costing a few pounds each in admin time; and now that is electronic, multiply by hundreds of thousands of appointments; a rather significant amount. The Health Foundation noted an EHR removes costs of paper processes like stationery and manual filing (Adedeji, Fraser and Scott, 2022). Assuming Leeds saved on printing and storage, maybe around £1-2m per year (a rough estimate for a trust that size), not to mention freeing physical space used for records archives which could be repurposed.

Improved Workflow Efficiency

Clinicians and staff spend less time on clerical tasks. For instance:

No more hunting for notes or X-rays

Before, a doctor might spend time locating a patient’s paper notes or waiting for results. Now, all info is accessible on the EHR instantly. This time saved means more time for patient care or seeing more patients. A systematic review found EHRs can reduce time spent on some administrative tasks; like order entry might take a bit more time, but retrieving information is much faster (Chimbo and Motsi, 2024). Leeds clinicians likely appreciate pulling up blood results or historical letters in seconds.

Electronic communication

Referrals, handovers, and discharge summaries are done electronically. This speeds up processes; for instance, discharge summaries can be sent to GPs immediately rather than posted, improving quality and saving postage costs. Leeds likely saw improved discharge efficiency; perhaps average time from discharge to summary completion dropped, given that some trust EHR implementations saw discharge summary completion rates within 24 hours increase rapidly.

Scheduling and coordination

With integrated systems, scheduling tests or consults is streamlined. A Leeds case study via GS1 integration noted noticeable time savings in locating patients and equipment (MacMillan, 2018); for instance, scanning patient wristbands to document where they are saves nursing time. An internal analysis might have found that nurses spend less time charting and more time with patients due to less redundant documentation; though early after go-live, documentation can initially take longer until habits form.

Reduced Duplication

EHRs help avoid duplicate tests and procedures. For example, if a patient’s labs were done, any clinician can see it; reducing the tendency to reorder simply because results weren’t at hand. Over a large trust, this avoids unnecessary blood tests, scans, etc., saving cost and patient discomfort. A Nuffield Trust paper suggests telehealth/EHR can reduce duplicate lab tests which historically cost the NHS substantially (Department of Health and Social Care, 2016). If Leeds cut duplicate lab tests by even 10%, the cost savings across thousands of tests could be notable, given that labs and imaging are expensive; each duplicate MRI avoided, for example, saves £150+.

Medication Safety and Cost

EHR’s electronic prescribing (ePMA) at Leeds likely reduced medication errors and improved formulary adherence. A study found EHRs reduce medication errors by about 46% (Simbo, 2023). In Leeds, fewer prescription mistakes means lower costs from adverse drug events (less litigation risk, shorter hospital stays when errors avoided). Also, decision support may suggest cheaper generic alternatives, saving pharmacy budget. For instance, if EHR alerts to an equally effective cheaper drug, it could trim medication costs. The trust could measure a reduction in pharmacy spending relative to patient load after ePMA implementation.

Length of Stay and Throughput

There is some evidence that EHRs can help reduce length of hospital stays by speeding processes like ordering and discharge. Leeds might have seen moderate improvements; for example, earlier availability of test results, since the are instantly viewable and sometimes integrated with faster orders, can lead to quicker clinical decisions and discharges. If average length of stay reduced even by 0.1 day on average due to efficiency, that frees bed capacity and is an efficiency gain. While pinpointing EHR as cause is tricky given the many factors at play, it likely contributed to improvements in patient flow, especially in combination with Lean processes.

Coding and Revenue Capture

EHRs improve documentation, which can lead to more accurate and sometimes higher clinical coding of procedures/diagnoses. This ensures hospitals get properly reimbursed; especially relevant in NHS for PbR, Payment by Results; though tariff system may recoup some based-on coding). Leeds may have recognized some uplift in coding completeness, leading to improved income capture for complex cases previously under-coded on paper. For example, an EHR might prompt to record all comorbidities, which influences the HRG code for payment.

Audit and Compliance Efficiency

Generating reports for audits, quality metrics, and regulatory compliance is much faster with electronic records. What once took weeks digging through charts can be done with database queries. This frees administrative staff from manual audit tasks. It is a soft saving but does improve overall efficiency.

While these are qualitative, Leeds likely tracked certain metrics. For instance, in-year savings might include reduced transcription costs: previously, medical secretaries spent time transcribing dictated letters. With EHR templates or voice recognition, Leeds may have cut overtime or even number of secretaries needed (through attrition); labour cost saving. Another metric, before EHR, missing notes in clinic might cause appointment delays or cancellations; with EHR, that problem disappears; potentially reducing wasted appointments.

Quantitative evidence from Leeds or similar

In GS1 UK reference book, Leeds reported huge time savings by standardising data capture and linking to EHR (MacMillan, 2018). They imply it contributed to “reducing the cost of the NHS” through efficiency (no specific number but presumably significant). Also, Virginia Mason Institute noted Leeds aimed to go from deficit to surplus by Lean and digital improvements (Virginia Mason Institute, 2022); by 2020s, Leeds did improve financially, possibly partly due to these efficiencies.

Leeds’s EHR implementation, therefore, gave multiple administrative benefits that translate into cost savings and efficiency:

• Thousands fewer staff hours on administrative hunts and paperwork; some studies find clinicians save about 30 minutes a day, which across all staff is enormous.
• Lower error rates and redundancy, improving quality and saving cost of mistakes.
• More streamlined operations enabling better use of resources (people and assets).
  These efficiency outcomes contribute to ROI, albeit ROI is realized gradually.

Training Challenges and User Adoption Barriers

Implementing an EHR is as much a human project as a technical one. Leeds encountered several challenges in training staff and gaining user acceptance, which had short-term costs and required strategic management:

Productivity Dip and Learning Curve

It is well-documented that when a new EHR goes live, initially staff may be slower at documentation and order entry while they adjust (Department of Health and Social Care, 2016). Leeds likely saw this; early months might have had longer clinic times or minor delays as doctors and nurses navigated the new system. Regulators are advised to be tolerant of short-term slowdowns post-HER (Department of Health and Social Care, 2016). Leeds mitigated this by providing elbow support and probably reducing elective workload slightly during go-live weeks. The “productivity paradox” is that benefits take time, whereas costs, like lost time, are upfront (Department of Health and Social Care, 2016). Staff frustration in that period can be high, impacting morale.

Training Fatigue and Coverage

Training thousands of staff without disrupting hospital operations was a major scheduling feat. Some staff inevitably felt training was insufficient or poorly timed. For example, night shift workers or part-timers might have struggled to attend standard sessions. There may have been resistance from senior clinicians not wanting to spend hours in training. Also, even after training, some users felt unprepared for real scenarios, given the difference between training environment and live environment. This required follow-up training and continuous support.

Change Resistance

Especially among veteran staff used to paper or legacy systems, there was likely scepticism. Comments like “it’s quicker to jot a note on paper” or concerns that “computers in the exam room will reduce patient interaction” often surface. At Leeds, a thorough engagement strategy was needed. They probably had physician champions such as clinical informaticists to advocate for the EHR, demonstrating its benefits. Still, some doctors might have initially underutilized features or kept shadow paper processes out of habit; for instance, writing vitals on paper then entering later, leading to duplication error risk. Changing ingrained workflows is a barrier.

Usability Issues

If the EHR interface wasn’t intuitive, users would complain. Many EHRs suffer from clunky design, causing physician burnout. Leeds being in-house might have tailored UI with clinician input, but no system is perfect. Nurses might have found it took more clicks to record observations than on a paper chart initially. Alert fatigue is another issue; if too many pop-up warnings (for drug interactions, etc.) arise, clinicians might get annoyed or ignore them, defeating the safety purpose. Leeds needed to tune the system to minimize unnecessary alerts. For instance, initial configuration might have fired many allergy alerts that were minor; adjusting those rules improves user acceptance.

Interoperability and Transition Issues

During the transition, not everything was digitized at once. Some old records might have remained on paper or in other systems. This hybrid period can frustrate staff; toggling between old and new systems or scanning paper documents into the EHR. Leeds likely had to scan decades of records or at least make summaries. Until historical data were fully integrated, clinicians might not find older info easily, causing complaints. However, Leeds had a head start with some digital records (PPM+ existing), so continuity might have been smoother than a trust going from 100% paper to digital overnight.

Workflow Adjustments

EHR often necessitates reassigning tasks. For example, with electronic prescribing, some responsibilities shift from pharmacists to doctors; for instance, doctors entering orders directly rather than writing and pharmacist transcribing. Some staff might perceive increased workload or role changes. Barriers include staff fear of being made obsolete (for instance, admin staff thinking “if notes are electronic, will my job go away?”) or conversely, clinicians fearing more clerical burden like typing notes themselves instead of dictation. Leeds had to manage these perceptions by clarifying roles and possibly providing tools like voice recognition to ease documentation burden. Indeed, an NHS staff expectation study found concerns about increased workload and disruption (McCrorie et al., 2019), and addressing expectations through communication is key.

Downtime and Technical Glitches

Early in deployment, there might be unplanned downtimes or slow system performance. If the EHR froze or network lagged, users would get frustrated and lose trust. Ensuring robust IT support 24/7 was critical. Leeds probably had backup read-only systems for downtime, but any downtime means reverting to paper temporarily, which users despise after getting used to electronic. Overcoming initial technical hiccups is part of adoption; every glitch can feed negativity (leading staff to have thoughts such as “see, this system is unreliable”). Minimizing and quickly resolving such issues was necessary to sustain momentum.

Cultural Shift

Leaning into digital often means more transparency and accountability, since every entry is attributable to a user, and management can audit timelines. Some clinicians might not like that level of oversight if not used to it. Also, team communication changes; messaging via EHR vs corridor chats. Adapting to that culture such as checking the EHR task list regularly takes enforcement. Younger staff usually adapt faster; older staff sometimes needed more coaxing. Leeds likely observed generational differences in adoption enthusiasm, addressing them via targeted mentoring.

Despite these challenges, Leeds managed a successful implementation, as evidenced by it continuing to use and even upgrade its EHR. Key to overcoming barriers was strong leadership support and user involvement. The Wachter principle #3 says ROI initially is in quality, not necessarily immediate cost (Department of Health and Social Care, 2016); Leeds’s leadership had to communicate that to stave off disappointment. They also likely invested in user-centred design improvements along the way, as recommended by Wachter (Department of Health and Social Care, 2016), to improve satisfaction, for instance, by customizing screens to clinician workflows.

Lessons Learned

For future trusts, Leeds’s experience underlines:

• Plan for the productivity dip and do not panic; performance will rebound if training and support are ongoing.
• Over-invest in training and at-the-elbow support during go-live to build confidence.
• Engage end-users early to minimize resistance; Leeds having in-house development meant clinicians could shape the system, increasing buy-in. The more they feel “it’s ‘our’ system”, the more likely they would be to embrace.
• Address myths and concerns through transparent communication. Show evidence EHR will reduce errors, not create them; reassure staff that roles will evolve, not vanish, or that new opportunities like analyst roles for interested clinicians exist.
• Usability matters; adjust as needed post-live, and celebrate quick wins. For example, highlight a story where EHR allergy alert prevented a serious error, to show its value.
• Monitor post-implementation user feedback closely; fix pain points. For instance, if doctors hate a particular screen, refine it.

Overall, while Leeds likely faced the normal adoption hurdles, they seem to have navigated them given EHR use is now embedded. Staff likely went from initial grumbling to now saying “I can’t imagine going back to paper” as is common within a year or two post-implementation.

Error Reduction, Patient Safety, and Long-Term Benefits

One of the most important outcomes of an EHR implementation is improved patient safety and quality of care, which, while harder to monetize, constitute a significant return on investment by preventing harm and associated costs:

Medication Error Reduction

With Leeds’s electronic prescribing, we expect a sharp drop in medication errors. Studies show about 50% reduction in prescribing errors and serious drug incidents after EHR introduction with decision support (Simbo, 2023). For example, illegible handwriting errors were eliminated. The system can catch dosing errors, like alerting if an insulin dose seems excessive for example, and allergy interactions. If prior to EHR Leeds had, say, 100 medication incidents per year, this might have fallen to 50 or fewer with ePMA. Fewer errors mean fewer adverse drug events, which means less patient harm, shorter hospitalizations, and potentially avoidance of litigation. The financial value of an adverse event averted is hard to pinpoint, but consider an ADE that extends a patient’s stay by 3 days; at £300 a bed day, preventing a handful of those pays dividends. Also, intangible ROI: improved patient trust and hospital reputation for safety.

Clinical Decision Support and Adherence to Guidelines

EHRs can embed guidelines, like prompts for foot exams for diabetics or sepsis screening fpr example. This ensures better quality of care and potentially better outcomes. Over time, this can reduce complication rates. For example, if the EHR reminds clinicians to prescribe anticoagulant prophylaxis for at-risk inpatients, that reduces incidence of preventable blood clots (VTE). Each prevented VTE not only avoids patient harm but also costs of treatment and possible lawsuits. Leeds likely integrated NICE guidelines into the EHR to standardize care, leading to measurable improvements in care processes; for instance, pneumonia antibiotic given within 4 hours rate might increase.

Data-Driven Improvements

With comprehensive data, Leeds can analyse trends and identify issues more readily. For instance, they might find variation in surgery outcomes and take action or realize certain clinics always run late and adjust scheduling. EHR data enables advanced analytics and population health management. Leeds could use it to target high-risk patients for interventions like identifying those frequently attending A&E and enrolling them in special programs for instance. These long-term benefits in managing chronic disease or resource planning can greatly improve efficiency. They might not show as immediate “savings,” but they enhance the value derived from the EHR. The trust’s digital strategy for 2024-2028 emphasizes digital as a key enabler of efficiency and service improvement (Virginia Mason Institute, 2022; HTN Health Tech News, 2024), indicating they foresee continued benefits from leveraging data.

Interoperability & Continuity

Leeds participates in the Leeds Care Record, a citywide shared record that PPM+ feeds into (Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, 2023). This means GPs, community care, and hospital share information. As a result, patients get smoother care transitions; medication changes in hospital are visible to GPs instantly, reducing primary care errors or duplicated efforts. Continuity improves, which can reduce readmissions, since the GP knows the discharge plan precisely. These outcomes improve patient safety after discharge. They also save time for clinicians in other settings who no longer chase info. This integrated care ROI is broader, benefitting the whole local system with less duplication of tests between hospital and GP, etc.

Long-Term Cost Avoidance

Better documentation and preventive care can reduce expensive long-term complications. For example, improved control of diabetic patients or hypertension because EHR alerts lead to timely interventions could mean fewer strokes or MIs down the line. If Leeds’s data helps proactively manage patients, the cost avoidance from each major event prevented (tens of thousands of pounds each, aside from human benefit) is massive, although accruing beyond the hospital’s immediate budget in some cases.

Staff Satisfaction & Recruitment

After the initial bump, a well-functioning EHR can improve staff job satisfaction by removing drudgery. Younger clinicians expect modern systems; having a top-notch EHR can help attract talent. A top-tier doctor might choose Leeds because it has a good digital environment versus a paper-based trust. This benefit might not be easily quantifiable but does influence workforce stability and performance; indirectly affecting ROI by retention (less cost hiring locums or replacing staff who leave due to frustration with old systems).

Resilience and Remote Capabilities

The COVID-19 pandemic showed the value of digital records; remote access for clinicians working from home or in different wards, data for public health surveillance, etc. Leeds’s EHR allowed rapid deployment of virtual clinics and remote monitoring during the pandemic, arguably. This resilience is a safety and efficiency benefit. It is a long-term benefit because healthcare is likely to face similar challenges or simply the new normal of more virtual care.

ROI Timeline

Recognizing Wachter’s advice (Department of Health and Social Care, 2016), Leeds might be now (a few years post go-live) starting to see financial ROI. Initially, ROI manifested as safer care (fewer errors) and better quality. Now, as workforce adjusts and more advanced features (like electronic pathways, predictive algorithms) come into play, financial and efficiency returns grow. For instance, Leeds could implement electronic clinical pathways that reduce unnecessary steps (Lean approach combined with EHR), boosting productivity further.

To gauge ROI, one could tally certain savings:

• Annual paper cost saved, e.g., £X.
• Staff time saved (converted to either cost saved via reduced overtime/agency or redeployed to see more patients; effectively increasing capacity worth £Y).
• Error-related cost avoidance (if X adverse events avoided, saving direct costs of £Z).
• Income gains (for example, better coding capturing an extra £W in tariff).
• Then compare against annual operating cost of EHR (maintenance, IT staff, etc., which can be a few million per year). Many EHR investments might break even or turn positive after 5+ years when these accrue. A US primary care study found positive ROI possible, time to cost recovery varied (Jang, Lortie and Sanche, 2014); in a large hospital context ROI is harder to compute, but if one counts quality gains, it’s undoubtedly high.

Strategic Recommendations

Based on Leeds’s case, for maximizing ROI and efficiency:

Ongoing Optimization

After go-live, continue refining workflows and EHR configurations. Leeds should use user feedback and data to streamline templates, reduce alert fatigue, and build new order sets that save clinician time. ROI comes not just from initial implementation but continuous improvement; the EHR is a platform for ongoing Lean projects.

Focus on Interoperability

Ensuring the EHR communicates across the region (social care, GP) amplifies benefits. Leeds’s integration into Leeds Care Record is exemplary. Other trusts should do similarly; ROI increases when an EHR is not an island, because it reduces duplication across the system.

Measure and Celebrate Wins

Leeds should keep measuring key metrics such as medication error rates, turnaround times for results, etc., and report improvements with the EHR to reinforce its value to staff and stakeholders. For example, “Medication errors down 30% (Simbo, 2023) since ePMA – meaning X patients spared harm” is a powerful message. It helps maintain user engagement and justify the investment to funders.

Invest in People (Training & Roles)

The trust should maintain strong IT training programs and maybe develop more Clinical informatics roles; nurses and doctors who dedicate part time to optimizing the system and helping peers. This ensures the EHR continues to evolve user-needs in mind, sustaining high ROI through high utilization of features; many EHRs only have partial feature use unless championed.

Leverage Data for Population Health

Now that EHR is embedded, Leeds can use analytics to identify trends and initiate preventive programs. For example, use predictive models to find patients at risk of readmission and intervene with community support, thereby reducing readmissions, which in NHS might not directly give revenue, but improves capacity use and may avoid penalties. They can also partner with universities to research using their rich data; potentially obtaining innovation grants or improved protocols (knowledge ROI).

Benchmarking and Sharing

Leeds should benchmark itself on key metrics against pre-EHR baseline and other trusts. If ROI and efficiency are good, share the lessons to help others; and if not, learn from peers. This culture of learning ensures the NHS overall gets maximum ROI from digital investments by avoiding pitfalls and copying successes.

Conclusion

Leeds Teaching Hospitals’ EHR implementation required a hefty upfront investment and came with challenges, but it is yielding significant efficiency gains, safety improvements, and strategic benefits that together constitute a strong return on investment over time. The trust has moved from labour-intensive, error-prone paper processes to a streamlined digital workflow where information is available instantly, processes are standardized, and care decisions are better informed.

Financially, while the initial years might not have shown immediate cost savings due to high implementation and transition costs, the tangible savings are now accruing; reduced stationery and storage costs, more productive use of staff time, fewer costly errors and adverse events, and avoidance of duplicate tests and procedures. Qualitatively, the value is evident in safer patient care; medication errors halved, improved compliance with best practices, and better patient outcomes. These translate to cost avoidance and better utilization of resources. Avoiding an adverse event avoids an extended hospital stay costing thousands of pounds.

The ROI for an EHR must be measured not just in pounds saved, but in the “value on investment”; improved quality, patient satisfaction, and groundwork for future innovations like AI decision support, which Leeds can now deploy on top of its EHR data. In Leeds, clinicians can now truly practice data-driven, coordinated care, which was not possible in the paper era. That is an invaluable return, aligning with the NHS’s goals of modernizing care for the 21^st century.

Leeds’ case demonstrates that with careful implementation, robust training, and user engagement, EHRs can deliver on their promises. The trust overcame adoption hurdles by investing in its workforce, extensive training, support; and making sure the system served clinical needs via a user-centred design. As a result, staff who once were resistant are now proficient and often cannot imagine working without the EHR.

In terms of efficiency metrics:

• Clinic and ward workflows are faster in key areas, since there is no more waiting for notes, instant orders, or automatic alerts.
• Administrative overhead is lower, since digital messaging replaces many phone calls and faxes.
• The trust can handle growing patient numbers without commensurate increases in admin staff, thanks to digital efficiencies; effectively bending the cost curve.
• The EHR also enables Leeds to respond to situations like the COVID pandemic effectively; quickly rolling out remote access and data tracking, proving its agility and long-term value in resilience.

For other NHS trusts considering or in the midst of EHR implementations, Leeds offers these strategic insights:

• Be patient for ROI: Do not expect immediate budget gains; focus on quality and process improvements early, the financial ROI will follow in time.
• Invest in people and process, not just IT: Training and change management are as crucial as the software itself in achieving efficiency outcomes.
• Continuously optimize: Go-live is the beginning, not the end. Continued enhancements drive additional ROI each year, and Leeds continues to upgrade PPM+ with new features.
• Align EHR with strategic goals: Leeds’s digital strategy ties into its broader goals of efficiency and patient-centred care. EHR is a means to achieve organizational strategy; for example, being paperless supports greener NHS, digital data supports research and innovation.
• Monitor and celebrate successes: Track error rates, wait times, length of stay, etc., to quantify improvements and keep stakeholders informed of the benefits delivered.

Leeds Teaching Hospitals’ EHR implementation, therefore, can be deemed a success in delivering ROI and efficiency outcomes. While the financial breakeven may be a few years down the line, the improvements in care quality, safety, and workflow efficiency are evident and substantial. These improvements will likely translate into increasing financial returns as efficiencies compound and costly adverse events diminish. The experience underscores that digitizing healthcare, when done right, leads to better care and can ultimately be more cost-effective, affirming the NHS’s push towards a fully digital future. Leeds’s journey serves as an encouraging example that the challenging path to EHR implementation is worth it; yielding a modern, safer, and more efficient healthcare environment for staff and patients alike.

Top Dissertation Topics UK

References

Adedeji, T., Fraser, H. and Scott, P. (2022) ‘Implementing electronic health records in primary care using the Theory of Change: Nigerian case study’, JMIR Medical Informatics, 10(8), p. e33491. doi: 10.2196/33491.

Chimbo, B. and Motsi, L. (2024) ‘The effects of electronic health records on medical error reduction: extension of the DeLone and McLean Information System Success Model’, JMIR Medical Informatics, 12, p. 54572. doi: 10.2196/54572.

Crouch, H. (2020) ‘Guy’s and St Thomas’ chooses Epic as ‘preferred supplier’ for £175m EHR’, Digital Health, 9 October. Available at: https://www.digitalhealth.net/2020/10/guys-and-st-thomas-epic-preferred-supplier/ (Accessed: 28 June 2025).

Department of Health and Social Care (2016) Making IT work: harnessing the power of health information technology to improve care in England. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/using-information-technology-to-improve-the-nhs/making-it-work-harnessing-the-power-of-health-information-technology-to-improve-care-in-england (Accessed: 28 June 2025).

Hoeksma, J. (2021) ‘Speculation of national Epic deal with NHS England’, Digital Health, 7 October. Available at: https://www.digitalhealth.net/2021/10/speculation-of-epic-deal-with-nhs-england/ (Accessed: 28 June 2025).

HTN Health Tech News (2024) Digital strategy from Leeds Teaching Hospitals: “proactive” digital service, empowered workforce, innovation culture and more. [Online] 22 October. Available at: https://htn.co.uk/2024/10/22/leeds-teaching-hospitals-digital-it-strategy-highlights-digitally-empowered-workforce-proactive-digital-service-reliable-infrastructure-innovation-culture-and-data-as-a-strategic-asset/ (Accessed: 28 June 2025).

Jang, Y., Lortie, M.A. and Sanche, S. (2014) ‘Return on investment in electronic health records in primary care practices: a mixed-methods study’, JMIR Medical Informatics, 2(2), p. e25. doi: 10.2196/medinform.3631.

Lawrence, A., Krelle, H., Horton, T. and Gerhold, M. (2025) Electronic patient records: why the NHS urgently needs a strategy to reap the benefits. [Online] London: The Health Foundation. Available at: https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/electronic-patient-records-nhs-strategy (Accessed: 28 June 2025).

Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (2023) 01‑APR summary – Financial year 2021. [PDF] Leeds: Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. Available at: https://www.leedsth.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/01-APR-Summary-FY21.pdf (Accessed: 28 June 2025).

Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (2024) Annual report and accounts 2021–2022. [PDF] Leeds: Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. Available at: https://www.leedsth.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Annual-Report-2021-22.pdf (Accessed: 28 June 2025).

Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (n.d.) ppm+ – Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust’s electronic health record. [PDF] Leeds: Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. Available at: https://www.ppmsupport.leedsth.nhs.uk/Resources/CaseStudy.pdf (Accessed: 28 June 2025).

MacMillan, S. (2018) Leeds Teaching Hospitals takes huge savings in time and spends it on patient care. In: GS1 Healthcare Reference Book 2018–2019. [PDF] Toronto: GS1 Canada. Available at: https://gs1ca.org/gs1ca-components/documents/case-studies/leeds-teaching-hospitals-uk.pdf (Accessed: 28 June 2025).

McCrorie, C., Benn, J., Johnson, O.A. and Scantlebury, A. (2019) ‘Staff expectations for the implementation of an electronic health record system: a qualitative study using normalisation process theory’, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 19, Article 222. doi: 10.1186/s12911-019-0952-3.

Saran, C. (2024) ‘Leeds Teaching Hospitals deploys patient records and data sharing on Azure’, Computer Weekly, 14 August. Available at: https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366603112/Leeds-Teaching-Hospitals-deploys-patient-records-and-data-sharing-on-Azure (Accessed: 28 June 2025).

Shah, S. (2015) ‘Revealed: The breakdown of costs of Addenbrooke’s Hospital’s £200m Epic IT system’, Computing, 24 September. Available at: https://www.computing.co.uk/news/2427408/revealed-the-breakdown-of-costs-of-addenbrookes-hospitals-gbp200m-epic-it-system (Accessed: 28 June 2025).

Simbo (2023) The impact of electronic health records on medication safety: a statistical analysis of error reduction. [Online] 11 October. Available at: https://www.simbo.ai/blog/the-impact-of-electronic-health-records-on-medication-safety-a-statistical-analysis-of-error-reduction-3938711/ (Accessed: 28 June 2025).

Synodus (2024) Electronic health record cost & ROI: Is EHR worth the investment? [Online] 16 October. Available at: https://synodus.com/blog/healthcare/electronic-health-record-cost/ (Accessed: 28 June 2025).

Virginia Mason Institute (2022) Case study: Achieving cost efficiencies while increasing staff engagement. [Online] 24 March. Available at: https://www.virginiamasoninstitute.org/resource/case-study-achieving-cost-efficiencies-while-increasing-staff-engagement/ (Accessed: 28 June 2025).

Explore Recent Blogs