Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Yearb Med Inform 2018; 27(01): 156-162
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1641202
Section 7: Consumer Health Informatics and Education
Working Group Contribution
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart

Benefit-risk of Patients' Online Access to their Medical Records: Consensus Exercise of an International Expert Group

Primary Health Care Informatics Working Group Contribution to the Yearbook of Medical Informatics 2018
Harshana Liyanage
1   Department of Clinical & Experimental Medicine, University of Surrey, GUILDFORD, Surrey, UK
,
Siaw-Teng Liaw
2   School of Public Health & Community Medicine, UNSW Medicine Australia, Ingham Institute of Applied Medical Research, NSW, Australia
,
Emmanouela Konstantara
1   Department of Clinical & Experimental Medicine, University of Surrey, GUILDFORD, Surrey, UK
,
Freda Mold
3   Department of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, GUILDFORD, Surrey GU2 7TE, UK
,
Richard Schreiber
4   Geisinger Holy Spirit, Camp Hill, PA, USA
,
Craig Kuziemsky
5   Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1N 6N5
,
Amanda L. Terry
6   Centre for Studies in Family Medicine, Department of Family Medicine, Interfaculty Program in Public Health, Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada
,
Simon de Lusignan
1   Department of Clinical & Experimental Medicine, University of Surrey, GUILDFORD, Surrey, UK
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
22 April 2018 (online)

Also available at
  Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Background: Patients' access to their computerised medical records (CMRs) is a legal right in many countries. However, little is reported about the benefit-risk associated with patients' online access to their CMRs.

Objective: To conduct a consensus exercise to assess the impact of patients' online access to their CMRs on the quality of care as defined in six domains by the Institute of Medicine (IoM), now the National Academy of Medicine (NAM).

Method: A five-round Delphi study was conducted. Round One explored experts' (n = 37) viewpoints on providing patients with access to their CMRs. Round Two rated the appropriateness of statements arising from Round One (n = 16). The third round was an online panel discussion of findings (n = 13) with the members of both the International Medical Informatics Association and the European Federation of Medical Informatics Primary Health Care Informatics Working Groups. Two additional rounds, a survey of the revised consensus statements and an online workshop, were carried out to further refine consensus statements.

Results: Thirty-seven responses from Round One were used as a basis to initially develop 15 statements which were categorised using IoM's domains of care quality. The experts agreed that providing patients online access to their CMRs for bookings, results, and prescriptions increased efficiency and improved the quality of medical records. Experts also anticipated that patients would proactively use their online access to share data with different health care providers, including emergencies. However, experts differed on whether access to limited or summary data was more useful to patients than accessing their complete records. They thought online access would change recording practice, but they were unclear about the benefit-risk of high and onerous levels of security. The 5-round process, finally, produced 16 consensus statements.

Conclusion: Patients' online access to their CMRs should be part of all CMR systems. It improves the process of health care, but further evidence is required about outcomes. Online access improves efficiency of bookings and other services. However, there is scope to improve many of the processes of care it purports to support, particularly the provision of a more effective interface and the protection of the vulnerable.

Keywords

Medical record systems, computerised - privacy - confidentiality - general practice - Delphi technique - patients' access to records
 

  • References

  • 1 Shah SG, Fitton R, Hannan A, Fisher B, Young T, Barnett J. Accessing personal medical records online: a means to what ends?. Int J Med Inform 2015; 84 (02) 111-8
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Bowden T, Coiera E. The role and benefits of accessing primary care patient records during unscheduled care: a systematic review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2017; 17 (01) 138
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Adler-Milstein J, Holmgren AJ, Kralovec P, Worzala C, Searcy T, Patel V. Electronic health record adoption in US hospitals: the emergence of a digital "advanced use" divide. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24 (06) 1142-8
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Baker MTM, Mawby R. The Future of GP Out-of-Hours Care. An RCGP Position Statement. London, UK: Royal College of General Practitioners; 2014. Available from: http://www.rcgp.org.uk/-/media/Files/Policy/A-Z-policy/RCGP-The-Future-of-GP-Out-of-Hours-Care-2015.ashx?la=en
    PubMed
  • 5 Practitioners RCoG. A Vision for General Practice in the future NHS: The 2022 GP. London, UK: Royal College of General Practitioners; 2013. Available from: http://www.rcgp.org.uk/campaign-home/~/media/files/policy/a-z-policy/the-2022-gp-a-vision-for-general-practice-in-thefuture-nhs.ashx
    PubMed
  • 6 Ware JMR. Patient access to general practice: ideas and challenges from the front line. London, UK: Royal College of General Practitioners; 2015. Available from: https://www.hiirc.org.nz/page/55381/patient-access-to-general-practice-ideas/;jsessionid=A570B42B376B6E92FBFAEB04FABD2C04?contentType=251&section=13825
    PubMed
  • 7 Mold F, de Lusignan S, Sheikh A, Majeed A, Wyatt JC, Quinn T. , et al. Patients' online access to their electronic health records and linked online services: a systematic review in primary care. Br J Gen Pract 2015; 65 (632) e141-51
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 de Lusignan S, Mold F, Sheikh A, Majeed A, Wyatt JC, Quinn T. , et al. Patients' online access to their electronic health records and linked online services: a systematic interpretative review. BMJ Open 2014; 4 (09) e006021
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Iacobucci G. Patients promised online access to their medical records by 2018. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 2015; 351: h4740
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Woodman J, Sohal AH, Gilbert R, Feder G. Online access to medical records: finding ways to minimise harms. Br J Gen Pract 2015; 65 (635) 280-1
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Vodicka E, Mejilla R, Leveille SG, Ralston JD, Darer JD, Delbanco T. , et al. Online access to doctors' notes: patient concerns about privacy. J Med Internet Res 2013; 15 (09) e208
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Wade-Vuturo AE, Mayberry LS, Osborn CY. Secure messaging and diabetes management: experiences and perspectives of patient portal users. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013; 20 (03) 519-25
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Hannan A. Providing patients online access to their primary care computerised medical records: a case study of sharing and caring. Inform Prim Care 2010; 18 (01) 41-9
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Nagykaldi Z, Aspy CB, Chou A, Mold JW. Impact of a Wellness Portal on the delivery of patient-centered preventive care. J Am Board Fam Med 2012; 25 (02) 158-67
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Delbanco T, Walker J, Bell SK, Darer JD, Elmore JG, Farag N. , et al. Inviting patients to read their doctors' notes: a quasi-experimental study and a look ahead. Ann Intern Med 2012; 157 (07) 461-70
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Root J, Oster NV, Jackson SL, Mejilla R, Walker J, Elmore JG. Characteristics of Patients Who Report Confusion After Reading Their Primary Care Clinic Notes Online. Health Commun 2016; 31 (06) 778-81
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Kummervold PE, Trondsen M, Andreassen H, Gammon D, Hjortdahl P. [Patient-physician interaction over the internet]. Tidsskrift for den Norske laegeforening : tidsskrift for praktisk medicin, ny raekke. 2004; 124 (20) 2633-6
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Lin CT, Wittevrongel L, Moore L, Beaty BL, Ross SE. An Internet-based patient-provider communication system: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 2005; 7 (04) e47
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Matheny ME, Gandhi TK, Orav EJ, Ladak-Merchant Z, Bates DW, Kuperman GJ. , et al. Impact of an automated test results management system on patients' satisfaction about test result communication. Arch Intern Med 2007; 167 (20) 2233-9
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Alander T, Scandurra I. Experiences of Healthcare Professionals to the Introduction in Sweden of a Public eHealth Service: Patients' Online Access to their Electronic Health Records. Stud Health Technol Inform 2015; 216: 153-7
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Schnipper JL, Gandhi TK, Wald JS, Grant RW, Poon EG, Volk LA. , et al. Effects of an online personal health record on medication accuracy and safety: a cluster-randomized trial. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012; 19 (05) 728-34
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Sarkar U, Lyles CR, Parker MM, Allen J, Nguyen R, Moffet HH. , et al. Use of the refill function through an online patient portal is associated with improved adherence to statins in an integrated health system. Med Care 2014; 52 (03) 194-201
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Moreno G, Lin EH, Chang E, Johnson RL, Berthoud H, Solomon CC. , et al. Disparities in the Use of Internet and Telephone Medication Refills among Linguistically Diverse Patients. J Gen Inter Med 2016; 31 (03) 282-8
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Wright A, Poon EG, Wald J, Feblowitz J, Pang JE, Schnipper JL. , et al. Randomized controlled trial of health maintenance reminders provided directly to patients through an electronic PHR. J Gen Intern Med 2012; 27 (01) 85-92
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Litchfield IJ, Bentham LM, Lilford RJ, Greenfield SM. Test result communication in primary care: clinical and office staff perspectives. Fam Pract 2014; 31 (05) 592-7
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Mak G, Smith Fowler H, Leaver C, Hagens S, Zelmer J. The Effects of Web-Based Patient Access to Laboratory Results in British Columbia: A Patient Survey on Comprehension and Anxiety. J Med Internet Res 2015; 17 (08) e191
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2001
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 28 Fitch KBSJ, Aguilar MD, Burnand B, LaCalle JR, Lazaro P, van het Loo M. , et al. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User's Manual; 2001
    PubMed
  • 29 Delbanco T, Walker J, Darer JD, Elmore JG, Feldman HJ, Leveille SG. , et al. Open notes: doctors and patients signing on. Ann Intern Med 2010; 153 (02) 121-5
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Buck J, Garde S, Kohl CD, Knaup-Gregori P. Towards a comprehensive electronic patient record to support an innovative individual care concept for premature infants using the openEHR approach. Int J Med Inform 2009; 78 (08) 521-31
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Ara R, Wailoo A. NICE Decision Support Unit Technical Support Documents. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 12: The Use of Health State Utility Values in Decision Models. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)unless otherwise stated; 2011
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 32 Weiner JP. Doctor-patient communication in the e-health era. Isr J Health Policy Res 2012; 1 (01) 33
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar