Experiences and opinions of general practitioners with patient online record access: an online survey in England

OBJECTIVE

To describe the experiences and opinions of general practitioners (GPs) in England regarding patients having access to their full online GP health records.

DESIGN

Convenience sample, online survey.

PARTICIPANTS

400 registered GPs in England.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Investigators measured GPs' experiences and opinions about online record access (ORA), including patient care and their practice.

RESULTS

A total of 400 GPs from all regions of England responded. A minority (130, 33%) believed ORA was a good idea. Most GPs believed a majority of patients would worry more (364, 91%) or find their GP records more confusing than helpful (338, 85%). Most GPs believed a majority of patients would find significant errors in their records (240, 60%), would better remember their care plan (280, 70%) and feel more in control of their care (243, 60%). The majority believed they will/already spend more time addressing patients' questions outside of consultations (357, 89%), that consultations will/already take significantly longer (322, 81%) and that they will be/already are less candid in their documentation (289, 72%) after ORA. Nearly two-thirds of GPs believed ORA would increase their litigation (246, 62%).

CONCLUSIONS

Similar to clinicians in other countries, GPs in our sample were sceptical of ORA, believing patients would worry more and find their records more confusing than helpful. Most GPs also believed the practice would exacerbate work burdens. However, the majority of GPs in this survey also agreed there were multiple benefits to patients having online access to their primary care health records. The findings of this survey also contribute to a growing body of contrastive research from countries where ORA is advanced, demonstrating clinicians are sceptical while studies indicate patients appear to derive multiple benefits.

Patient Access to Mental Health Notes: Motivating Evidence-Informed Ethical Guidelines

ABSTRACT

In the last decade, many health organizations have embarked on a revolution in clinical communication. Using electronic devices, patients can now gain rapid access to their online clinical records. Legally, patients in many countries already have the right to obtain copies of their health records; however, the practice known as "open notes" is different. Via secure online health portals, patients are now able to access their test results, lists of medications, and the very words that clinicians write about them. Open notes are growing with most patients in the Nordic countries already offered access to their full electronic record. From April 2021, a new federal ruling in the United States mandates-with few exemptions-that providers offer patients access to their online notes (Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Department of Health and Human Services, Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-03-04/pdf/2019-02224.pdf#page=99). Against these policy changes, only limited attention has been paid to the ethical question about whether patients with mental health conditions should access their notes, as mentioned in the articles by Strudwick, Yeung, and Gratzer (Front Psychiatry 10:917, 2019) and Blease, O'Neill, Walker, Hägglund, and Torous (Lancet Psychiatry 7:924-925, 2020). In this article, our goal is to motivate further inquiry into opening mental health notes to patients, particularly among persons with serious mental illness and those accessing psychological treatments. Using biomedical ethical principles to frame our discussion, we identify key empirical questions that must be pursued to inform ethical practice guidelines.

Sharing clinical notes, and placebo and nocebo effects: Can documentation affect patient health?

This paper connects findings from the field of placebo studies with research into patients' interactions with their clinician's visit notes, housed in their electronic health records. We propose specific hypotheses about how features of clinicians' written notes might trigger mechanisms of placebo and nocebo effects to elicit positive or adverse health effects among patients. Bridging placebo studies with (a) survey data assaying patient and clinician experiences with portals and (b) randomized controlled trials provides preliminary support for our hypotheses. We conclude with actionable proposals for testing our understanding of the health effects of access to visit notes.

User Requirements for an Electronic Medical Records System for Oncology in Developing Countries: A Case Study of Uganda

Cancer is a major public health challenge in developing countries but the healthcare systems are not well prepared to deal with the epidemic. Health information technologies such as electronic medical records (EMRs) have the potential to improve cancer care yet their adoption remains low, in part due to EMR systems not meeting user requirements. This study aimed at analyzing the user requirements for an EMR for a cancer hospital in Uganda. A user-centered approach was taken, through focus group discussion and interviews with target end users to analyze workflow, challenges and wishes. Findings highlight the uniqueness of oncology in low-resource settings and the requirements including support for oncology-specific documentation, reuse of data for research and reporting, assistance with care coordination, computerized clinical decision support, and the need to meet the constraints in terms of technological infrastructure, stretched healthcare workforce and flexibility to allow variations and exceptions.