Introduction Despite many innovations in information technology, many clinics still rely on paper-based medical records. Critics, however, claim that they are hard to read, because of illegible handwriting, and uncomfortable to use. Moreover, a chronological overview is not always easily possible, content can be destroyed or get lost. There is an overall opinion that electronic medical records (EMRs) should solve these problems and improve physicians’ efficiency, patients’ safety and reduce the overall costs in practice. However, to date, the evidence supporting this view is sparse.

Methods and analysis In this protocol, we describe a study exploring differences in speed and accuracy when searching clinical information using the paper-based patient record or the Elektronische DateneRfassung (EDeR). Designed as a randomised vignette study, we hypothesise that the EDeR increases efficiency, that is, reduces time on reading the patient history and looking for relevant examination results, helps finding mistakes and missing information quicker and more reliably. In exploratory analyses, we aim at exploring factors associated with a higher performance.

Ethics and dissemination The ethics committee of the Canton Lucerne, Switzerland, approved this study. We presume that the implementation of the EMR software EDeR will have a positive impact on the efficiency of the doctors, which will result in an increase of consultations per day. We believe that the results of our study will provide a valid basis to quantify the added value of an EMR system in an ophthalmological environment.