Background: Engaging patients in the delivery of health care has the potential to improve health outcomes and patient satisfaction. Patient portals may enhance patient engagement by enabling patients to access their electronic medical records (EMRs) and facilitating secure patient-provider communication. Objective: The aim of this study was to review literature describing patient portals tethered to an EMR in inpatient settings, their role in patient engagement, and their impact on health care delivery in order to identify factors and best practices for successful implementation of this technology and areas that require further research. Methods: A systematic search for articles in the PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase databases was conducted using keywords associated with patient engagement, electronic health records, and patient portals and their respective subject headings in each database. Articles for inclusion were evaluated for quality using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) for systematic review articles and the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs for empirical studies. Included studies were categorized by their focus on input factors (eg, portal design), process factors (eg, portal use), and output factors (eg, benefits) and by the valence of their findings regarding patient portals (ie, positive, negative, or mixed). Results: The systematic search identified 58 articles for inclusion. The inputs category was addressed by 40 articles, while the processes and outputs categories were addressed by 36 and 46 articles, respectively: 47 articles addressed multiple themes across the three categories, and 11 addressed only a single theme. Nineteen articles had high- to very high-quality, 21 had medium quality, and 18 had low- to very low-quality. Findings in the inputs category showed wide-ranging portal designs; patients’ privacy concerns and lack of encouragement from providers were among portal adoption barriers while information access and patient-provider communication were among facilitators. Several methods were used to train portal users with varying success. In the processes category, sociodemographic characteristics and medical conditions of patients were predictors of portal use; some patients wanted unlimited access to their EMRs, personalized health education, and nonclinical information; and patients were keen to use portals for communicating with their health care teams. In the outputs category, some but not all studies found patient portals improved patient engagement; patients perceived some portal functions as inadequate but others as useful; patients and staff thought portals may improve patient care but could cause anxiety in some patients; and portals improved patient safety, adherence to medications, and patient-provider communication but had no impact on objective health outcomes. Conclusions: While the evidence is currently immature, patient portals have demonstrated benefit by enabling the discovery of medical errors, improving adherence to medications, and providing patient-provider communication, etc. High-quality studies are needed to fully understand, improve, and evaluate their impact.

/pdf/patient-portals-facilitating-engagement-with-inpatient-4tp5dyge71.pdf

Patient Portals Facilitating Engagement With Inpatient Electronic Medical Records: A Systematic Review.

Background: The electronic health record (EHR) has been fully established in all Norwegian hospitals. Patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) are available to citizens aged 16 years and older through the national health portal Helsenorge.
Objective: This study aimed at understanding how patients use PAEHRs. Three research questions were addressed in order to explore (1) characteristics of users, (2) patients’ use of the service, and (3) patient experience with the service.
Methods: We conducted an online survey of users who had accessed their EHR online at least once through the national health portal. Patients from two of the four health regions in Norway were invited to participate. Quantitative data were supplemented by qualitative information.
Results: A total of 1037 respondents participated in the survey, most of whom used the PAEHR regularly (305/1037, 29.4%) or when necessary (303/1037, 29.2%). Service utilization was associated with self-reported health, age, gender, education, and health care professional background. Patients found the service useful to look up health information (687/778, 88.3%), keep track of their treatment (684/778, 87.9%), prepare for a hospital appointment (498/778, 64.0%), and share documents with their general practitioner (292/778, 37.5%) or family (194/778, 24.9%). Most users found it easy to access their EHR online (965/1037, 93.1%) and did not encounter technical challenges. The vast majority of respondents (643/755, 85.2%) understood the content, despite over half of them acknowledging some difficulties with medical terms or phrases. The overall satisfaction with the service was very high (700/755, 92.7%). Clinical advantages to the patients included enhanced knowledge of their health condition (565/691, 81.8%), easier control over their health status (685/740, 92.6%), better self-care (571/653, 87.4%), greater empowerment (493/674, 73.1%), easier communication with health care providers (493/618, 79.8%), and increased security (655/730, 89.7%). Patients with complex, long-term or chronic conditions seemed to benefit the most. PAEHRs were described as useful, informative, effective, helpful, easy, practical, and safe.
Conclusions: PAEHRs in Norway are becoming a mature service and are perceived as useful by patients. Future studies should include experimental designs focused on specific populations or chronic conditions that are more likely to achieve clinically meaningful benefits. Continuous evaluation programs should be conducted to assess implementation and changes of wide-scale routine services over time.

/pdf/patient-use-and-experience-with-online-access-to-electronic-4clo3fjcry.pdf

Patient Use and Experience With Online Access to Electronic Health Records in Norway: Results From an Online Survey.

Background: This is the second of two papers presenting the results from a study of the implementation of patient online access to their electronic health records (here referred to as Open Notes) in adult psychiatric care in Sweden. The study contributes an important understanding of both the expectations and concerns that existed among health care professionals before the introduction of the Open Notes Service in psychiatry and the perceived impact of the technology on their own work and patient behavior after the implementation. The results from the previously published baseline survey showed that psychiatric health care professionals generally thought that Open Notes would influence both the patients and their own practice negatively. Objective: The objective of this study was to describe and discuss how health care professionals in adult psychiatric care in Region Skane in southern Sweden experienced the influence of Open Notes on their patients and their own practice, and to compare the results with those of the baseline study. Methods: We distributed a full population Web-based questionnaire to psychiatric care professionals in Region Skane in the spring of 2017, which was one and a half years after the implementation of the service. The response rate was 27.73% (699/2521). Analyses showed that the respondents were representative of the staff as a whole. A statistical analysis examined the relationships between health professional groups and attitudes to the Open Notes Service. Results: A total of 41.5% (285/687) of the health care professionals reported that none of their patients stated that they had read their Open Notes. Few health care professionals agreed with the statements about the potential benefits for patients from Open Notes. Slightly more of the health care professionals agreed with the statements about the potential risks. In addition, the results indicate that there was little impact on practice in terms of longer appointments or health care professionals having to address patients’ questions outside of appointments. However, the results also indicate that changes had taken place in clinical documentation. Psychologists (39/63, 62%) and doctors (36/94, 38%) in particular stated that they were less candid in their documentation after the implementation of Open Notes. Nearly 40% of the health care professionals (239/650, 36.8%) reported that the Open Notes Service in psychiatry was a good idea. Conclusions: Most health care professionals who responded to the postimplementation survey did not experience that patients in adult psychiatric care had become more involved in their care after the implementation of Open Notes. The results also indicate that the clinical documentation had changed after the implementation of Open Notes. Finally, the results indicate that it is important to prepare health care professionals before an implementation of Open Notes, especially in medical areas where the service is considered sensitive.

/pdf/open-notes-in-swedish-psychiatric-care-part-2-survey-among-vrbdembhri.pdf

Open Notes in Swedish Psychiatric Care (Part 2): Survey Among Psychiatric Care Professionals

LSE-Lancet Commission on the future of the NHS: re-laying the foundations for an equitable and efficient health and care service after COVID-19.

Sharing notes with mental health patients: balancing risks with respect

Objectives Patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) are being implemented at international scale. Comparing policies and systems could allow countries to learn from each other to address global and nation-specific challenges. We compare national PAEHR policy (hard and soft regulation) and services in 10 countries. Methods PAEHR policy and system documentation was gathered from Australia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and the United States. A basic analytic model for policy analysis was used to delimit our focus to policy content, followed by an inductive thematic analysis across countries, in which we clustered initial themes into a set of categories of PAEHR service “approaches” related to three specific content areas. Results Although all 10 countries ensured some patient rights to access medical records, policies and systems were highly variable, as were the technological processes arising from these. In particular, three policy areas showed great variability. Depending upon country of origin, a patient would encounter differences in: login procedures (security), access to own and other patients’ data during adolescence (user rights), and types of medical data made available to the patient (data sets). Conclusions Individuals encounter very different access rights to their medical data depending on where they live. Countries may be able to develop improved policies by examining how other nations have solved common problems. Harmonizing policies is also an initial step likely to be needed before cross-national PAEHRs could be possible.

Patient access to electronic health records : Differences across ten countries

Patient Access to Electronic Health Records : Differences Across Ten Countries (vol 7, pg 44, 2018)

Souad Odeh

Papers

Patient access to electronic health records : Differences across ten countries

Corrigendum to ``Patient Access to Electronic Health Records: Differences Across Ten Countries'' [Health Policy and Technology, 7 (2018), 44–56]