Clinical research is undergoing a transformation. The old model of manually entering patient information from an electronic health record (EHR) into an electronic data capture (EDC) system is being replaced by smarter, more connected workflows. The integration of EHRs and EDCs—often called EHR-to-EDC—offers an opportunity to streamline data collection, improve accuracy, and accelerate timelines.

But with innovation comes complexity. Not every solution is created equal, and selecting the right approach can make the difference between smoother operations and a costly, frustrating deployment. At Mahalo, we’ve worked with research organizations, health systems, and technology partners to guide them through this choice. In this article, we’ll explore what makes a great EHR-to-EDC solution, the common pitfalls, and the questions you should be asking before moving forward.

Why EHR-to-EDC Integration Matters

Clinical trials rely on data integrity. Every transcription error, delayed update, or missing value can impact regulatory submissions, safety monitoring, or trial outcomes. Traditional processes require sites to duplicate work—entering data once into the EHR and again into the EDC.

EHR-to-EDC integration reduces that burden by:

• Eliminating Double Data Entry – Data flows directly from clinical care to research records.
• Reducing Errors – Less manual input means fewer discrepancies.
• Improving Timeliness – Investigators gain near real-time access to high-quality data.
• Supporting Patient Safety – Rapid data availability allows faster response to adverse events.

In short, integration isn’t just about efficiency—it’s about building more reliable, patient-centered trials.

The Challenges of Choosing a Solution

Despite the clear advantages, many research organizations hesitate. Why? Because choosing an EHR-to-EDC solution isn’t straightforward. Here are some of the biggest challenges we see:

Diverse EHR Environments

Every health system runs its own configuration of Epic, Cerner, Allscripts, or other platforms. No two sites are alike. A strong solution must handle this variability gracefully.

Regulatory Expectations

Regulators expect traceable, auditable data pipelines. If integration shortcuts compromise compliance with FDA 21 CFR Part 11, HIPAA, or GDPR, adoption becomes a liability.

User Experience at the Site Level

Site coordinators need simplicity. If an integration adds more clicks or complexity, adoption will fail—even if the underlying technology is impressive.

Cost and Resource Constraints

Large sponsors may have budgets for enterprise systems, but smaller research groups need scalable, cost-effective options.

Future-Proofing

With interoperability standards like FHIR (Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources) evolving, it’s critical to select a solution that won’t be obsolete in two years.

Key Factors to Evaluate in an EHR-to-EDC Solution

When organizations explore integration options, we encourage them to use the following criteria as a decision framework:

1. Data Quality and Mapping Does the solution provide strong data normalization and mapping? Clinical notes, lab values, and vitals often have different naming conventions across sites. Automated mapping with human oversight ensures that captured data is both accurate and consistent.
2. Compliance and Security Is the system built with compliance in mind from day one? Look for certification and controls that meet global standards—SOC 2, HIPAA, GDPR, and FDA Part 11. Security must extend across APIs, endpoints, and user access.
3. Configurability, Not Custom Coding The best integrations are configuration-driven, not custom development projects. That means sites can adjust mapping, workflows, and study forms without waiting months for engineering support.
4. User-Centered Workflow Design Does the integration reduce site burden, or add to it? Choose a solution that integrates seamlessly into existing EHR workflows so research teams don’t need a new training manual to complete simple tasks.
5. Scalability Across Studies Will the integration work for one trial only, or can it scale across your entire research portfolio? A reusable integration layer saves significant costs over time.
6. Vendor Support and Partnerships Behind every good integration is a team that supports it. Consider not only the technology but also the partner’s expertise, responsiveness, and long-term roadmap.

Practical Questions to Ask Before Selecting a Vendor

When evaluating options, trial sponsors and CROs should ask:

• How does the system ensure data traceability from the EHR to the EDC?
• What interoperability standards does it use (e.g., FHIR, HL7, CDISC)?
• How quickly can it be deployed at a new research site?
• Does the vendor provide validation packages for regulatory review?
• Can the system handle both structured and unstructured data?
• How much ongoing maintenance or IT involvement will be required?

Mahalo’s Perspective

At Mahalo, we see EHR-to-EDC integration as inevitable. It’s not a luxury add-on; it’s becoming a baseline expectation for modern trials. The right solution can:

• Accelerate data collection by weeks or months.
• Reduce site burnout by simplifying workflows.
• Enhance data integrity for regulators and sponsors.
• Lower costs by cutting manual monitoring and re-work.

But success depends on choosing wisely. A poorly designed integration risks alienating site staff, failing audits, or locking organizations into brittle technology.

Conclusion

The move toward connected, interoperable research systems is already underway. Clinical trial leaders have a choice: adopt EHR-to-EDC solutions that empower their teams—or risk falling behind in an increasingly data-driven ecosystem.

If you’re evaluating how EHR-to-EDC can fit into your organization, Mahalo is ready to help. With our deep expertise in digital health, interoperability, and clinical trial technology, we partner with research organizations to ensure integration works—not just in theory, but in practice.

EHR-to-EDC is no longer a question of if—it’s a question of how well you choose the solution.

‍