Patient Online Record Access in English Primary Care: Qualitative Survey Study of General Practitioners' Views.

attitudes electronic health records general practice online record access open notes opinions patients primary care qualitative research

Journal

Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
22 02 2023
Historique:
received: 14 10 2022
accepted: 31 12 2022
revised: 16 12 2022
entrez: 22 2 2023
pubmed: 23 2 2023
medline: 25 2 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

In 2022, NHS England announced plans to ensure that all adult primary care patients in England would have full online access to new data added to their general practitioner (GP) record. However, this plan has not yet been fully implemented. Since April 2020, the GP contract in England has already committed to offering patients full online record access on a prospective basis and on request. However, there has been limited research into UK GPs' experiences and opinions about this practice innovation. This study aimed to explore the experiences and opinions of GPs in England about patients' access to their full web-based health record, including clinicians' free-text summaries of the consultation (so-called "open notes"). In March 2022, using a convenience sample, we administered a web-based mixed methods survey of 400 GPs in the United Kingdom to explore their experiences and opinions about the impact on patients and GPs' practices to offer patients full online access to their health records. Participants were recruited using the clinician marketing service Doctors.net.uk from registered GPs currently working in England. We conducted a qualitative descriptive analysis of written responses ("comments") to 4 open-ended questions embedded in a web-based questionnaire. Of 400 GPs, 224 (56%) left comments that were classified into 4 major themes: increased strain on GP practices, the potential to harm patients, changes to documentation, and legal concerns. GPs believed that patient access would lead to extra work for them, reduced efficiency, and increased burnout. The participants also believed that access would increase patient anxiety and incur risks to patient safety. Experienced and perceived documentation changes included reduced candor and changes to record functionality. Anticipated legal concerns encompassed fears about increased litigation risks and lack of legal guidance to GPs about how to manage documentation that would be read by patients and potential third parties. This study provides timely information on the views of GPs in England regarding patient access to their web-based health records. Overwhelmingly, GPs were skeptical about the benefits of access both for patients and to their practices. These views are similar to those expressed by clinicians in other countries, including Nordic countries and the United States before patient access. The survey was limited by the convenience sample, and it is not possible to infer that our sample was representative of the opinions of GPs in England. More extensive, qualitative research is required to understand the perspectives of patients in England after experiencing access to their web-based records. Finally, further research is needed to explore objective measures of the impact of patient access to their records on health outcomes, clinician workload, and changes to documentation.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
In 2022, NHS England announced plans to ensure that all adult primary care patients in England would have full online access to new data added to their general practitioner (GP) record. However, this plan has not yet been fully implemented. Since April 2020, the GP contract in England has already committed to offering patients full online record access on a prospective basis and on request. However, there has been limited research into UK GPs' experiences and opinions about this practice innovation.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to explore the experiences and opinions of GPs in England about patients' access to their full web-based health record, including clinicians' free-text summaries of the consultation (so-called "open notes").
METHODS
In March 2022, using a convenience sample, we administered a web-based mixed methods survey of 400 GPs in the United Kingdom to explore their experiences and opinions about the impact on patients and GPs' practices to offer patients full online access to their health records. Participants were recruited using the clinician marketing service Doctors.net.uk from registered GPs currently working in England. We conducted a qualitative descriptive analysis of written responses ("comments") to 4 open-ended questions embedded in a web-based questionnaire.
RESULTS
Of 400 GPs, 224 (56%) left comments that were classified into 4 major themes: increased strain on GP practices, the potential to harm patients, changes to documentation, and legal concerns. GPs believed that patient access would lead to extra work for them, reduced efficiency, and increased burnout. The participants also believed that access would increase patient anxiety and incur risks to patient safety. Experienced and perceived documentation changes included reduced candor and changes to record functionality. Anticipated legal concerns encompassed fears about increased litigation risks and lack of legal guidance to GPs about how to manage documentation that would be read by patients and potential third parties.
CONCLUSIONS
This study provides timely information on the views of GPs in England regarding patient access to their web-based health records. Overwhelmingly, GPs were skeptical about the benefits of access both for patients and to their practices. These views are similar to those expressed by clinicians in other countries, including Nordic countries and the United States before patient access. The survey was limited by the convenience sample, and it is not possible to infer that our sample was representative of the opinions of GPs in England. More extensive, qualitative research is required to understand the perspectives of patients in England after experiencing access to their web-based records. Finally, further research is needed to explore objective measures of the impact of patient access to their records on health outcomes, clinician workload, and changes to documentation.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36811939
pii: v25i1e43496
doi: 10.2196/43496
pmc: PMC9996425
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e43496

Subventions

Organisme : Department of Health
ID : NIHR300887
Pays : United Kingdom

Informations de copyright

©Charlotte Blease, John Torous, Zhiyong Dong, Gail Davidge, Catherine DesRoches, Anna Kharko, Andrew Turner, Ray Jones, Maria Hägglund, Brian McMillan. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 22.02.2023.

Références

Br J Gen Pract. 2022 Jan 27;72(715):e128-e137
pubmed: 34903520
J Nerv Ment Dis. 2021 Apr 1;209(4):265-269
pubmed: 33764954
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Mar 20;21(3):e12802
pubmed: 30892270
Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2016 Jan-Feb;38:89-93
pubmed: 26380876
J Med Internet Res. 2019 May 06;21(5):e13876
pubmed: 31066717
Br J Gen Pract. 2015 Mar;65(632):e141-51
pubmed: 25733435
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Dec 19;20(12):e11293
pubmed: 30567695
J Med Internet Res. 2016 Jun 27;18(6):e167
pubmed: 27349531
BMC Health Serv Res. 2022 Apr 29;22(1):581
pubmed: 35488233
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Jan 15;20(1):e11
pubmed: 29335237
JAMA. 2022 Feb 22;327(8):717-718
pubmed: 35119468
BMJ. 2022 Nov 21;379:e069861
pubmed: 36410770
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2022 May 25;294:495-499
pubmed: 35612129
Front Public Health. 2021 Jun 08;9:621210
pubmed: 34169054
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2022 May 25;294:510-514
pubmed: 35612132
JAMA. 2012 Nov 21;308(19):2012-9
pubmed: 23168824
Ann Intern Med. 2012 Oct 2;157(7):461-70
pubmed: 23027317
Front Public Health. 2020 Nov 27;8:577896
pubmed: 33330320
BMJ. 2022 Nov 30;379:o2902
pubmed: 36450389
Res Nurs Health. 2000 Aug;23(4):334-40
pubmed: 10940958
JRSM Short Rep. 2012 May;3(5):34
pubmed: 22666531
BMJ Open. 2021 Mar 11;11(3):e044221
pubmed: 33707271
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Jun 1;3(6):e205867
pubmed: 32515797
JMIR Ment Health. 2021 Dec 14;8(12):e34170
pubmed: 34904956
BMJ. 2019 Oct 2;367:l5725
pubmed: 31578180
J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Nov;36(11):3330-3336
pubmed: 33886028
Psychiatr Serv. 2019 Jun 1;70(6):474-479
pubmed: 30890047
BMJ. 2021 Feb 18;372:n426
pubmed: 33602667
Ann Intern Med. 2021 Jan;174(1):101-102
pubmed: 33045176
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Oct 1;4(10):e2129553
pubmed: 34661667
J Med Ethics. 2021 May 14;:
pubmed: 33990427
PLoS One. 2021 Oct 13;16(10):e0258056
pubmed: 34644320
JMIR Ment Health. 2018 Jun 21;5(2):e10521
pubmed: 29929946
Diagnosis (Berl). 2019 Aug 27;6(3):213-221
pubmed: 31039128
Res Nurs Health. 2010 Feb;33(1):77-84
pubmed: 20014004
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Nov 01;20(11):e278
pubmed: 30389647
Health Informatics J. 2018 Jun;24(2):115-124
pubmed: 27440056
BMJ Open. 2020 Jun 17;10(6):e034773
pubmed: 32554721
PLoS One. 2018 Dec 12;13(12):e0207418
pubmed: 30540791
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Mar 2;3(3):e201753
pubmed: 32219406
BMJ Qual Saf. 2020 Dec;29(12):1019-1032
pubmed: 32532814
Health Informatics J. 2020 Jun;26(2):1392-1403
pubmed: 31621459
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2022 May 25;294:530-534
pubmed: 35612136
Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Nov;7(11):924-925
pubmed: 32059796
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Mar 1;4(3):e212823
pubmed: 33760088
J Patient Saf. 2021 Dec 1;17(8):e791-e799
pubmed: 29781979
BMJ Open. 2014 Sep 08;4(9):e006021
pubmed: 25200561
JMIR Ment Health. 2018 Feb 02;5(1):e11
pubmed: 29396386

Auteurs

Charlotte Blease (C)

Division of General Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Digital Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.

John Torous (J)

Digital Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.

Zhiyong Dong (Z)

Division of General Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.

Gail Davidge (G)

Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.

Catherine DesRoches (C)

Division of General Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.

Anna Kharko (A)

Healthcare Sciences and e-Health, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
School of Psychology, Faculty of Health, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.

Andrew Turner (A)

Centre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration West, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom.

Ray Jones (R)

School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.

Maria Hägglund (M)

Healthcare Sciences and e-Health, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Brian McMillan (B)

Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH