Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) are used increasingly throughout medicine, with 45.3% of ophthalmology units reporting use in 2017 [1]; external pressures including pandemic-induced new ways of working may soon render them compulsory. With widely publicised benefits and challenges of EMR across specialities and nations [2,3,4], the Royal College of Ophthalmologists (RCOphth) issued standards EMR systems should meet to optimise usage [5]. The introduction of ophthalmology-specific EMR in the UK has generated ground-breaking high-volume data, particularly in cataract, anti-VEGF treatments and glaucoma surgery [1]. However, perhaps due to the subspecialty interests of the pioneers paving the way in this field, anecdotal grumblings exist about the quality of EMR in others, including oculoplastics.

We invited all full members of the British OculoPlastic Surgery Society (BOPSS) to complete an online survey exploring current practices and opinions regarding EMR in oculoplastics from January to June 2021, receiving 71 responses (39.4% response rate). Table 1 outlines the quantitative responses. 80% report using EMR (38% of these Medisoft, though 15 different systems were reported), 49% both for outpatient clinics and recording operations. 40/56 (71%) described documenting a complete examination as ‘somewhat’ or ‘very challenging’, 32/54 (56%) find recording important positives or negatives ‘harder’ or ‘much harder’. 59% have been involved in medicolegal aspects of clinical care; 33% have undertaken formal medicolegal training. 57% perceive an increased medicolegal risk with EMRs compared with hand-written notes. However, no statistical association was found on chi square testing between involvement in medicolegal care, or formal training, with perception of increased risk. 23% report documenting inadequate clinical information to manage a complaint, 35% citing poor user-friendliness of the systems for this.