Search

Background Worldwide, patients are increasingly being offered access to their full online clinical records including the narrative reports written by clinicians (so-called “open notes”). Against these developments, there is growing interest in the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) such as OpenAI's ChatGPT to co-assist clinicians with patient-facing documentation. Objective This study aimed to explore the effectiveness of OpenAI's ChatGPT 3.5 and GPT 4.0 in generating three patient-facing clinical notes from fictional general practice narrative reports. Methods On 1 October 2023 and 1 November 2023, we used ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 to generate notes for three validated fictional general practice notes, using a prompt in the style of a British primary care note for three commonly presented conditions: (1) type 2 diabetes, (2) major depressive disorder, and (3) a differential diagnosis for suspected bowel cancer. Outputs were analyzed for reading ease, sentiment analysis, empathy, and medical fidelity. Results ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 wrote longer notes than the original, and embedded more second person pronouns, with ChatGPT 3.5 scoring higher on both. ChatGPT expanded abbreviations, but readability metrics showed that the notes required a higher reading proficiency, with ChatGPT 3.5 demanding the most advanced level. Across all notes, ChatGPT offered higher signatures of empathy across cognitive, compassion/sympathy, and prosocial cues. Medical fidelity ratings varied across all three cases with ChatGPT 4.0 rated superior. Conclusions While ChatGPT improved sentiment and empathy metrics in the transformed notes, compared to the original they also required higher reading proficiency and omitted details impacting medical fidelity.

Objective The current understanding of the breadth of individual differences in how eHealth technologies are perceived as useful for different purposes is incomprehensive. The aim/purpose of the study is to improve the understanding of diverse perceptions of the usefulness of technologies by exploring older adults’ use of their patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs). Methods The study applies and extends Affordance Theory based on an empirical analysis of data from the NORDeHEALTH 2022 Patient Survey on attitudes toward PAEHR in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Estonia. Responses from 3964 participants in Sweden, aged 65 + years were analysed. Data included demographics and agreement ratings to reasons for using PAEHR. To analyse variation in the reasons for using PAEHR, group comparisons were conducted based on gender (male/female), age group (65–74, 75–84 and 85+) and earlier encouragement to use PAEHR. Results Overall, the findings suggest that PAEHRs have multiple parallel affordance trajectories and affordance potencies that actualise differently depending on needs. The top reasons, pointing to both orientational and goal-oriented affordances for using PAEHR, were improving understanding of health issues, getting an overview of medical history/treatment and ensuring understanding of what the doctor said. Men reported more often sharing information with relatives or friends as a reason to access PAEHR. Women were more inclined, albeit similarly to men less frequently, to read their PAEHR for detecting errors. Age had little influence on reasons for using PAEHR. Conclusions The study applies and extends Affordance Theory in the context of older adults’ PAEHR use based on findings from the largest national investigation of reasons for older users to access PAEHR in Sweden demonstrating the applicability of the theory in improving the understanding of the diversity of individual perceptions on eHealth technologies.

Objective Patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHR) were implemented in the Stockholm region of Sweden seven years ago. This study examines socio-demographic and psychographic factors associated with reading/not reading these records, as well as the common reasons for such behaviours. Methods Patients or guardians of minors seeking face-to-face or digital primary healthcare in the Stockholm region responded to a questionnaire about whether they were aware that they could read their PAEHR, and if so, if they had read it and reasons for reading or not reading. We conducted a comparative analysis of readers and non-readers and a stepwise multiple logistic regression. Results The majority of participants were aware that they could read the PAEHR (86%) and among those aware, 77% had read it. The odds of reading decreased with increased age, unfavourable opinion of PAEHR, low information literacy and being single. Access to a smartphone increased the probability of reading. Participants who had read their PAEHR had commonly read it to get an overview of their health and care (65%) and to follow up on a healthcare visit (55%). Participants who had not read their PAEHR stated generally that they did not need to (63%) and/or had received sufficient information from their providers (38%). Conclusions While most people were aware they could read the PAEHR and many had read it, a digital divide and several barriers to reading the PAEHR were identified. Efforts to increase PAEHR reading may be targeted at older people, people needing more informal support, those who may be excluded due to limited information literacy, and towards improving the patient portals’ usability.

Abstract Background Providing secondary prevention through structured and comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation programmes to patients after a myocardial infarction (MI) reduces mortality and morbidity and improves health-related quality of life. Cardiac rehabilitation has the highest recommendation in current guidelines. While treatment target attainment rates at Swedish cardiac rehabilitation centres is among the highest in Europe, there are considerable differences in service delivery and variations in patient-level outcomes between centres. In this trial, we aim to study whether centre-level guideline adherence and patient-level outcomes across Swedish cardiac rehabilitation centres can be improved through a) regular audit and feedback of cardiac rehabilitation structure and processes through a national quality registry and b) supporting cardiac rehabilitation centres in implementing guidelines on secondary prevention. Furthermore, we aim to evaluate the implementation process and costs. Methods The study is an open-label cluster-randomized effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial including all 78 cardiac rehabilitation centres (attending to approximately 10 000 MI patients/year) that report to the SWEDEHEART registry. The centres will be randomized 1:1:1 to three clusters: 1) reporting cardiac rehabilitation structure and process variables to SWEDEHEART every six months (audit intervention) and being offered implementation support to implement guidelines on secondary prevention (implementation support intervention); 2) audit intervention only; or 3) no intervention offered. Baseline cardiac rehabilitation structure and process variables will be collected. The primary outcome is an adherence score measuring centre-level adherence to secondary prevention guidelines. Secondary outcomes include patient-level secondary prevention risk factor goal attainment at one-year after MI and major adverse coronary outcomes for up to five-years post-MI. Implementation outcomes include barriers and facilitators to guideline adherence evaluated using semi-structured focus-group interviews and relevant questionnaires, as well as costs and cost-effectiveness assessed by a comparative health economic evaluation. Discussion Optimizing cardiac rehabilitation centres’ delivery of services to meet standards set in guidelines may lead to improvement in cardiovascular risk factors, including lifestyle factors, and ultimately a decrease in morbidity and mortality after MI. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov. Identifier: NCT05889416 . Registered 2023-03-23.

Objectives Following the launch of ChatGPT in November 2022, interest in large language model-powered chatbots has soared with increasing focus on the clinical potential of these tools. We sought to measure general practitioners’ (GPs) current use of this new generation of chatbots to assist with any aspect of clinical practice in the UK.Methods An online survey was distributed to a non-probability sample of GPs registered with the clinician marketing service Doctors.net.uk. The study was launched as a monthly ‘omnibus survey’ which has a predetermined sample size of 1000 participants.Results 531 (53%) respondents were men, 544 (54%) were 46 years or older. 20% (205) reported using generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools in clinical practice; of those who answered affirmatively and were invited to clarify further, 29% (47) reported using these tools to generate documentation after patient appointments and 28% (45) to suggest a differential diagnosis.Discussion Administered a year after ChatGPT was launched, this is the largest survey we know of conducted into doctors’ use of generative AI in clinical practice. Findings suggest that GPs may derive value from these tools, particularly with administrative tasks and to support clinical reasoning.Conclusion Despite a lack of guidance about these tools and unclear work policies, GPs report using generative AI to assist with their job. The medical community will need to find ways to both educate physicians and trainees and guide patients about the safe adoption of these tools.

BackgroundThe NORDeHEALTH project studies patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) in Estonia, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Such country comparisons require an analysis of the sociotechnical context of these services. Although sociotechnical analyses of PAEHR services have been carried out in the past, a framework specifically tailored to in-depth cross-country analysis has not been developed. ObjectiveThis study aims to develop and evaluate a method for a sociotechnical analysis of PAEHRs that advances a framework for sociotechnical analysis of eHealth solutions first presented by Sittig and Singh. This first article in a series presents the development of the method and a cross-country comparison of the contextual factors that enable PAEHR access and use. MethodsThe dimensions of the framework for sociotechnical analysis were thoroughly discussed and extended in a series of workshops with international stakeholders, all being eHealth researchers focusing on PAEHRs. All countries were represented in the working group to make sure that important national perspectives were covered. A spreadsheet with relevant questions related to the studied services and the various dimensions of the sociotechnical framework was constructed and distributed to the 4 participating countries, and the project participants researched various national sources to provide the relevant data for the comparisons in the 10 sociotechnical dimensions. ResultsIn total, 3 dimensions were added to the methodology of Sittig and Singh to separate clinical content from features and functions of PAEHRs and demonstrate basic characteristics of the different countries regarding national and regional steering of health care and information and communications technology developments. The final framework contained the following dimensions: metadata; hardware and software computing infrastructure; features and functions; clinical content shared with patients; human-computer interface; people; workflow and communication; the health care organization’s internal policies, procedures, and culture; national rules, regulations, and incentives; system measurement and monitoring; and health care system context. The dimensions added during the study mostly concerned background information needed for cross-country comparisons in particular. Several similarities were identified among the compared countries, especially regarding hardware and software computing infrastructure. All countries had, for example, one national access point, and patients are provided a PAEHR automatically. Most of the differences could be identified in the health care system context dimension. One important difference concerned the governing of information and communications technology development, where different levels (state, region, and municipality) were responsible in different countries. ConclusionsThis is the first large-scale international sociotechnical analysis of services for patients to access their electronic health records; this study compared services in Estonia, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. A methodology for such an analysis was developed and is presented to enable comparison studies in other national contexts to enable future implementations and evaluations of PAEHRs.

The Nordic countries are, together with the United States, forerunners in online record access (ORA), which has now become widespread. The importance of accessible and structured health data has also been highlighted by policy makers internationally. To ensure the full realization of ORA’s potential in the short and long term, there is a pressing need to study ORA from a cross-disciplinary, clinical, humanistic, and social sciences perspective that looks beyond strictly technical aspects. In this viewpoint paper, we explore the policy changes in the European Health Data Space (EHDS) proposal to advance ORA across the European Union, informed by our research in a Nordic-led project that carries out the first of its kind, large-scale international investigation of patients’ ORA—NORDeHEALTH (Nordic eHealth for Patients: Benchmarking and Developing for the Future). We argue that the EHDS proposal will pave the way for patients to access and control third-party access to their electronic health records. In our analysis of the proposal, we have identified five key principles for ORA: (1) the right to access, (2) proxy access, (3) patient input of their own data, (4) error and omission rectification, and (5) access control. ORA implementation today is fragmented throughout Europe, and the EHDS proposal aims to ensure all European citizens have equal online access to their health data. However, we argue that in order to implement the EHDS, we need more research evidence on the key ORA principles we have identified in our analysis. Results from the NORDeHEALTH project provide some of that evidence, but we have also identified important knowledge gaps that still need further exploration.

Abstract Introduction Parkinson's Disease (PD) is a complex neurodegenerative disease resulting in a wide range of motor and nonmotor symptoms for which the treatment regimen is often complex. People with Parkinson's (PwP) spend time daily on self‐care practices including self‐tracking signs and symptoms or seeking disease‐specific knowledge. Research suggests self‐care interventions yield promising care and health outputs for PwP, yet most research focuses on the provider perspective rather than that of those conducting the self‐care. This study explores the meaning of self‐care, disease‐specific knowledge, and self‐tracking from the perspective of PwP in Sweden. Methods Qualitative data from three data sets were analyzed and compared using qualitative content analysis: one focus group on self‐care (n = 14), one free‐text survey on disease‐specific knowledge (n = 197) and one free‐text survey on self‐tracking (n = 33). Findings The analysis resulted in three categories: illness‐related tasks, internal resources and external resources. Illness‐related tasks describe various tasks PwP carry out in self‐care, including lifestyle choices, treatments, and self‐tracking. Internal resources include personal knowledge/skills as well as mindsets which could facilitate or challenge completing these tasks. Finally, external resources include other PwP, literature, clinicians and other sources of disease‐specific knowledge. Self‐care was found to fluctuate between beneficial and burdensome depending on such resources. Conclusions In conclusion, self‐care needs to be acknowledged and discussed more often in PD and other complex conditions. Future self‐care interventions should consider self‐tracking and disease‐specific knowledge as well as internal and external resources in their design and implementation. Patient or Public Contribution A researcher with PD was actively involved in all phases of the research: study design, data collection and analysis, and preparing the manuscript.

Abstract Background The use of remote services such as video consultations (VCs) has increased significantly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. In Sweden, private healthcare providers offering VCs have grown substantially since 2016 and have been controversial. Few studies have focused on physicians’ experiences providing care in this context. Our aim was to study physicians’ experiences of VCs, focusing on the work environment, quality of care, and educational needs. Methods Twenty-two semi-structured interviews were performed with physicians working with VCs in Sweden, and analyzed through inductive content analysis. Results We identified five categories; flexibility, social work environment, impact on care and society, continuous learning and career development, and organizational support. Flexibility and accessibility were considered positive features of working digitally by giving physicians control over their time and workplace and increasing patients’ timely access to healthcare. Regarding collegial contact and social activities in a digital context, the majority of the participants did not experience any significant difference compared to the physical context. Access to technical support services, educational support, and collegial support in decision-making, guidance, and consultations were described as well-functioning. Satisfied patients positively impacted the work environment, and participants felt that VCs have a positive socio-economic effect. Continuity of care was considered supported, but patients did not always prioritize this. Privacy risks were considered a challenge, as were poor development of clinical skills due to the low variation of patient cases. Working for an online healthcare provider was contributing to career advancements for junior clinicians. Conclusions Physicians appreciate the flexibility of the digital context and seem satisfied with a work environment where they have a high level of control, but few consider this a full-time career option. The pandemic year 2020 has led to a significant increase in the implementation of VCs in traditional care systems. How this affects the work environment and continuous education needs and career development remains to be seen.

Background In a growing number of countries, patients are offered access to their full online clinical records, including the narrative reports written by clinicians (the latter, referred to as “open notes”). Even in countries with mature patient online record access, access to psychotherapy notes is not mandatory. To date, no research has explored the views of psychotherapy trainees about open notes. Objective This study aimed to explore the opinions of psychotherapy trainees in Switzerland about patients’ access to psychotherapists’ free-text summaries. Methods We administered a web-based mixed methods survey to 201 psychotherapy trainees to explore their familiarity with and opinions about the impact on patients and psychotherapy practice of offering patients online access to their psychotherapy notes. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the 42-item survey, and qualitative descriptive analysis was employed to examine written responses to four open-ended questions. Results Seventy-two (35.8%) trainees completed the survey. Quantitative results revealed mixed views about open notes. 75% agreed that, in general open notes were a good idea, and 94.1% agreed that education about open notes should be part of psychotherapy training. When considering impact on patients and psychotherapy, four themes emerged: (a) negative impact on therapy; (b) positive impact on therapy; (c) impact on patients; and (d) documentation. Students identified concerns related to increase in workload, harm to the psychotherapeutic relationship, and compromised quality of records. They also identified many potential benefits including better patient communication and informed consent processes. In describing impact on different therapy types, students believed that open notes might have differential impact depending on the psychotherapy approaches. Conclusions Sharing psychotherapy notes is not routine but is likely to expand. This mixed methods study provides timely insights into the views of psychotherapy trainees regarding the impact of open notes on patient care and psychotherapy practice.

Background Having online access to electronic health records (EHRs) may help patients become engaged in their care at an early age. However, little is known about adolescents using patient portals. A national survey conducted within the Nordic eHealth project NORDeHEALTH provided an important opportunity to advance our understanding of adolescent users of patient portals. The present study explored reasons for reading the EHRs, the perceived usefulness of information and functions in a patient portal and the association between frequency of use and encouragement to read the EHR.Methods Data were collected in a survey using convenience sampling, available through the Swedish online health portal during 3 weeks in January and February 2022. This study included a subset of items and only respondents aged 15–19. Demographic factors and frequencies on Likert-style questions were reported with descriptive statistics, while Fisher’s exact test was used to explore differences in use frequency based on having been encouraged to read by a healthcare professional (HCP).Results Of 13 008 users who completed the survey, 218 (1.7%) were unique users aged 15–19 (females: 77.1%). One-fifth (47/218, 21.6%) had been encouraged by HCPs to read their records, and having been encouraged by HCPs was related to higher use frequency (p=0.018). All types of information were rated high on usefulness, while some functions were rated low, such as blocking specific clinical notes from HCPs and managing services for family members. The main reason for reading their health records online was out of curiosity.Conclusions Adolescents who read their records online perceive it to be useful. Encouragement by HCPs can lead to increased use of patient portals among adolescents. Findings should be considered in the future design of patient portals for adolescents.

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.

Patients’ online record access (ORA) is growing worldwide. In some countries, including the United States and Sweden, access is advanced with patients obtaining rapid access to their full records on the web including laboratory and test results, lists of prescribed medications, vaccinations, and even the very narrative reports written by clinicians (the latter, commonly referred to as “open notes”). In the United States, patient’s ORA is also available in a downloadable form for use with other apps. While survey studies have shown that some patients report many benefits from ORA, there remain challenges with implementation around writing clinical documentation that patients may now read. With ORA, the functionality of the record is evolving; it is no longer only an aide memoire for doctors but also a communication tool for patients. Studies suggest that clinicians are changing how they write documentation, inviting worries about accuracy and completeness. Other concerns include work burdens; while few objective studies have examined the impact of ORA on workload, some research suggests that clinicians are spending more time writing notes and answering queries related to patients’ records. Aimed at addressing some of these concerns, clinician and patient education strategies have been proposed. In this viewpoint paper, we explore these approaches and suggest another longer-term strategy: the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) to support clinicians in documenting narrative summaries that patients will find easier to understand. Applied to narrative clinical documentation, we suggest that such approaches may significantly help preserve the accuracy of notes, strengthen writing clarity and signals of empathy and patient-centered care, and serve as a buffer against documentation work burdens. However, we also consider the current risks associated with existing generative AI. We emphasize that for this innovation to play a key role in ORA, the cocreation of clinical notes will be imperative. We also caution that clinicians will need to be supported in how to work alongside generative AI to optimize its considerable potential.

This study reports the results of a university course aimed at exploring and improving cooperation in healthcare with both cancer survivors, loved ones and healthcare professionals as students.Central to the course was the understanding of and moving between each other's perspectives. Operating within a framework inspired by problem-based learning (PBL), small groups consisting of at least one cancer survivor, one loved one and one healthcare professional, collaboratively created scenarios based on their personal experiences. The students developed, elaborated, and identified problems and potential solutions. The pedagogical framing illustrated an empowering process of defining and elaborating a problem of their combined concerns, using their different knowledge. Although cooperation presented challenges, most students were able to explore and appreciate each other's perspectives when provided with a safe environment. Our experiences highlight the importance of both contextual safety and personal development as key factors in addressing power imbalances in healthcare.

Abstract Background More knowledge is needed regarding the perceptions of healthcare professionals when encountering empowered patients and informal caregivers in clinical settings. This study aimed to investigate healthcare professionals’ attitudes towards and experiences of working with empowered patients and informal caregivers, and perception of workplace support in these situations. Methods A multi-centre web survey was conducted using a non-probability sampling of both primary and specialized healthcare professionals across Sweden. A total of 279 healthcare professionals completed the survey. Data was analysed using descriptive statistics and Thematic analysis. Results Most respondents perceived empowered patients and informal caregivers as positive and had to some extent experience of learning new knowledge and skills from them. However, few respondents stated that these experiences were regularly followed-up at their workplace. Potentially negative consequences such as increased inequality and additional workload were, however, mentioned. Patients’ engagement in the development of clinical workplaces was seen as positive by the respondents, but few had own experience of such engagement and considered it difficult to be achieved . Conclusion Overall positive attitudes of healthcare professionals are a fundamental prerequisite to the transition of the healthcare system recognizing empowered patients and informal caregivers as partners.

BackgroundPatient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) hold promise for empowering patients, but their impact may vary between mental and somatic health care. Medical professionals and ethicists have expressed concerns about the potential challenges of PAEHRs for patients, especially those receiving mental health care. ObjectiveThis study aims to investigate variations in the experiences of online access to electronic health records (EHRs) among persons receiving mental and somatic health care, as well as to understand how these experiences and perceptions vary among those receiving mental health care at different levels of point of care. MethodsUsing Norwegian data from the NORDeHEALTH 2022 Patient Survey, we conducted a cross-sectional descriptive analysis of service use and perceptions of perceived mistakes, omissions, and offensive comments by mental and somatic health care respondents. Content analysis was used to analyze free-text responses to understand how respondents experienced the most serious errors in their EHR. ResultsAmong 9505 survey participants, we identified 2008 mental health care respondents and 7086 somatic health care respondents. A higher percentage of mental health care respondents (1385/2008, 68.97%) reported that using PAEHR increased their trust in health care professionals compared with somatic health care respondents (4251/7086, 59.99%). However, a significantly larger proportion (P

BackgroundPrevious research reports that patients with mental health conditions experience benefits, for example, increased empowerment and validation, from reading their patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs). In mental health care (MHC), PAEHRs remain controversial, as health care professionals are concerned that patients may feel worried or offended by the content of the notes. Moreover, existing research has focused on specific mental health diagnoses, excluding the larger PAEHR userbase with experience in MHC. ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to establish if and how the experiences of patients with and those without MHC differ in using their PAEHRs by (1) comparing patient characteristics and differences in using the national patient portal between the 2 groups and (2) establishing group differences in the prevalence of negative experiences, for example, rates of errors, omissions, and offenses between the 2 groups. MethodsOur analysis was performed on data from an online patient survey distributed through the Swedish national patient portal as part of our international research project, NORDeHEALTH. The respondents were patient users of the national patient portal 1177, aged 15 years or older, and categorized either as those with MHC experience or with any other health care experience (nonmental health care [non-MHC]). Patient characteristics such as gender, age, education, employment, and health status were gathered. Portal use characteristics included frequency of access, encouragement to read the record, and instances of positive and negative experiences. Negative experiences were further explored through rates of error, omission, and offense. The data were summarized through descriptive statistics. Group differences were analyzed through Pearson chi-square. ResultsOf the total sample (N=12,334), MHC respondents (n=3131) experienced errors (1586/3131, 50.65%, and non-MHC 3311/9203, 35.98%), omissions (1089/3131, 34.78%, and non-MHC 2427/9203, 26.37%) and offenses (1183/3131, 37.78%, and non-MHC 1616/9203, 17.56%) in the electronic health record at a higher rate than non-MHC respondents (n=9203). Respondents reported that the identified error (MHC 795/3131, 50.13%, and non-MHC 1366/9203, 41.26%) and omission (MHC 622/3131, 57.12%, and non-MHC 1329/9203, 54.76%) were “very important,” but most did nothing to correct them (MHC 792/3131, 41.29%, and non-MHC 1838/9203, 42.17%). Most of the respondents identified as women in both groups. ConclusionsAbout 1 in 2 MHC patients identified an error in the record, and about 1 in 3 identified an omission, both at a much higher rate than in the non-MHC group. Patients with MHC also felt offended by the content of the notes more commonly (1 in 3 vs 1 in 6). These findings validate some of the worries expressed by health care professionals about providing patients with MHC with PAEHRs and highlight challenges with the documentation quality in the records.

BackgroundAlthough many surveys have been conducted on patients accessing their own health records in recent years, there is a limited amount of nationwide cross-country data available on patients’ views and preferences. To address this gap, an international survey of patient users was conducted in the Nordic eHealth project, NORDeHEALTH. ObjectiveWe aimed to investigate the sociodemographic characteristics and experiences of patients who accessed their electronic health records (EHRs) through national patient portals in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Estonia. MethodsA cross-sectional web-based survey was distributed using the national online health portals. The target participants were patients who accessed the national patient portals at the start of 2022 and who were aged ≥15 years. The survey included a mixture of close-ended and free-text questions about participant sociodemographics, usability experience, experiences with health care and the EHR, reasons for reading health records online, experience with errors, omissions and offense, opinions about security and privacy, and the usefulness of portal functions. In this paper, we summarized the data on participant demographics, past experience with health care, and the patient portal through descriptive statistics. ResultsIn total, 29,334 users completed the survey, of which 9503 (32.40%) were from Norway, 13,008 (44.35%) from Sweden, 4713 (16.07%) from Finland, and 2104 (7.17%) from Estonia. National samples were comparable according to reported gender, with about two-thirds identifying as women (19,904/29,302, 67.93%). Age distributions were similar across the countries, but Finland had older users while Estonia had younger users. The highest attained education and presence of health care education varied among the national samples. In all 4 countries, patients most commonly rated their health as “fair” (11,279/29,302, 38.48%). In Estonia, participants were more often inclined to rate their health positively, whereas Norway and Sweden had the highest proportion of negative health ratings. Across the whole sample, most patients received some care in the last 2 years (25,318/29,254, 86.55%). Mental health care was more common (6214/29,254, 21.24%) than oncological care (3664/29,254, 12.52%). Overall, most patients had accessed their health record “2 to 9 times” (11,546/29,306, 39.4%), with the most frequent users residing in Sweden, where about one-third of patients accessed it “more than 20 times” (4571/13,008, 35.14%). ConclusionsThis is the first large-scale international survey to compare patient users’ sociodemographics and experiences with accessing their EHRs. Although the countries are in close geographic proximity and demonstrate similar advancements in giving their residents online records access, patient users in this survey differed. We will continue to investigate patients’ experiences and opinions about national patient-accessible EHRs through focused analyses of the national and combined data sets from the NORDeHEALTH 2022 Patient Survey.

BackgroundInternationally, patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) are increasingly being implemented. Despite reported benefits to patients, the innovation has prompted concerns among health care professionals (HCPs), including the possibility that access incurs a “dumbing down” of clinical records. Currently, no review has investigated empirical evidence of whether and how documentation changes after introducing PAEHRs. ObjectiveThis paper presents the protocol for a scoping review examining potential subjective and objective changes in HCPs documentation after using PAEHRs. MethodsThis scoping review will be carried out based on the framework of Arksey and O’Malley. Several databases will be used to conduct a literature search (APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, PubMed, and Web of Science Core Collection). Authors will participate in screening identified papers to explore the research questions: How do PAEHRs affect HCPs’ documentation practices? and What subjective and objective changes to the clinical notes arise after patient access? Only studies that relate to actual use experiences, and not merely prior expectations about PAEHRs, will be selected in the review. Data abstraction will include but will not be limited to publication type, publication year, country, sample characteristics, setting, study aim, research question, and conclusions. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool will be used to assess the quality of the studies included. ResultsThe results from this scoping review will be presented as a narrative synthesis structured along the key themes of the corpus of evidence. Additional data will be prepared in charts or tabular format. We anticipate the results to be presented in a scoping review at a later date. They will be disseminated at scientific conferences and through publication in a peer-reviewed journal. ConclusionsThis is the first scoping review that considers potential change in documentation after implementation of PAEHRs. The results can potentially help affirm or refute prior opinions and expectations among various stakeholders about the use of PAEHRs and thereby help to address uncertainties. Results may help to provide guidance to clinicians in writing notes and thus have immediate practical relevance to care. In addition, the review will help to identify any substantive research gaps in this field of research. In the longer term, our findings may contribute to the development of shared documentation guidelines, which in turn are central to improving patient communication and safety. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)PRR1-10.2196/46722

BackgroundPatient portals not only provide patients with access to electronic health records (EHRs) and other digital health services, such as prescription renewals, but they can also improve patients’ self-management, engagement with health care professionals (HCPs), and care processes. However, these benefits depend on patients’ willingness to use patient portals and, ultimately, their experiences with the usefulness and ease of use of the portals. ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate the perceived usability of a national patient portal and the relationship of patients’ very positive and very negative experiences with perceived usability. The study was aimed to be the first step in developing an approach for benchmarking the usability of patient portals in different countries. MethodsData were collected through a web-based survey of the My Kanta patient portal’s logged-in patient users in Finland from January 24, 2022, to February 14, 2022. Respondents were asked to rate the usability of the patient portal, and the ratings were used to calculate approximations of the System Usability Scale (SUS) score. Open-ended questions asked the patients about their positive and negative experiences with the patient portal. The statistical analysis included multivariate regression, and the experience narratives were analyzed using inductive content analysis. ResultsOf the 1,262,708 logged-in patient users, 4719 responded to the survey, giving a response rate of 0.37%. The patient portal’s usability was rated as good, with a mean SUS score of 74.3 (SD 14.0). Reporting a very positive experience with the portal was positively associated with perceived usability (β=.51; P

BackgroundPatients with chronic illnesses with physical and cognitive disabilities, particularly stroke survivors with aphasia, are often not involved in design and evaluation processes. As a consequence, existing eHealth services often do not meet the needs of this group of patients, which has resulted in a digital divide. ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness and user satisfaction of an electronic care and rehabilitation planning tool from the perspective of stroke survivors with aphasia. This would help us gain knowledge on how such a tool would need to be adapted for these patients for further development. MethodsUsability tests were conducted with 9 postdischarge stroke survivors with aphasia. Effectiveness was measured using task-based tests, and user satisfaction was studied through qualitative interviews at the end of each test. All tests were audio recorded, and each test lasted approximately 1 hour. The data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. As the tool can be used by stroke survivors either independently or with some support from their next of kin or care professionals, the research group decided to divide the participants into 2 groups. Group 1 did not receive any support during the tests, and group 2 received some minor support from the moderator. ResultsThe results showed that the care and rehabilitation planning tool was not effective for stroke survivors with aphasia, as many participants in group 1 did not accomplish the tasks successfully. Despite several usability problems and challenges in using the tool because of patients’ disabilities, the participants were positive toward using the tool and found it useful for their care and rehabilitation journey. ConclusionsThere is a need to involve patients with chronic illnesses more in the design and evaluation processes of health information systems and eHealth services. eHealth services and health information systems designed for this group of patients should be more adaptable and flexible to provide them with appropriate functionalities and features, meet their needs, and be useful and easy to use. In addition, the design and evaluation processes should be adapted, considering the challenges of this patient group.

BackgroundIn 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. ObjectiveThis 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”). MethodsIn 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. ResultsOf 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. ConclusionsThis 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.

BackgroundPatient empowerment is an important concept and a movement toward person-centered care of patients with chronic conditions. Nevertheless, to date, most research on empowered patients or informal caregivers has been conducted from a narrow clinical perspective. Such research has mainly focused on how health care professionals can empower patients to increase self-care or compliance with treatment. Research on empowered patient and informal caregiver needs and self-empowering activities is scarce. ObjectiveWe aimed to explore empowering behaviors from a patient and informal caregiver perspective in the context of self-management and to understand how health care can support such behaviors better. MethodsWe used an exploratory, qualitative study design. A total of 15 semistructured interviews and 6 focus group interviews were conducted with 48 patients and informal caregivers. We analyzed the interviews using thematic analysis and used a directed content analysis to analyze the focus group interviews. ResultsA total of 14 patterns of empowering behaviors were identified that were characterized by several exploratory and influencing activities performed by the participants. The participants expressed a desire to be more active in their care than what is expected and supported by health care professionals. The participants also desired better support for activities imposed on them by health care professionals. ConclusionsTo enable a transformation of the health care system to better support self-empowering behaviors, there is a need to develop self-management approaches from a patient and informal caregiver perspective.

BackgroundOngoing efforts worldwide to provide patients with patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) have led to variability in adolescent and parental access across providers, regions, and countries. There is no compilation of evidence to guide policy decisions in matters such as access age and the extent of parent proxy access. In this paper, we outline our scoping review of different stakeholders’ (including but not limited to end users) views, use, and experiences pertaining to web-based access to electronic health records (EHRs) by children, adolescents, and parents. ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to identify, categorize, and summarize knowledge about different stakeholders’ (eg, children and adolescents, parents, health care professionals [HCPs], policy makers, and designers of patient portals or PAEHRs) views, use, and experiences of EHR access for children, adolescents, and parents. MethodsA scoping review was conducted according to the Arksey and O’Malley framework. A literature search identified eligible papers that focused on EHR access for children, adolescents, and parents that were published between 2007 and 2021. A number of databases were used to search for literature (PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO). ResultsThe approach resulted in 4817 identified articles and 74 (1.54%) included articles. The papers were predominantly viewpoints based in the United States, and the number of studies on parents was larger than that on adolescents and HCPs combined. First, adolescents and parents without access anticipated low literacy and confidentiality issues; however, adolescents and parents who had accessed their records did not report such concerns. Second, the main issue for HCPs was maintaining adolescent confidentiality. This remained an issue after using PAEHRs for parents, HCPs, and other stakeholders but was not an experienced issue for adolescents. Third, the viewpoints of other stakeholders provided a number of suggestions to mitigate issues. Finally, education is needed for adolescents, parents, and HCPs. ConclusionsThere is limited research on pediatric PAEHRs, particularly outside the United States, and on adolescents’ experiences with web-based access to their records. These findings could inform the design and implementation of future regulations regarding access to PAEHRs. Further examination is warranted on the experiences of adolescents, parents, and HCPs to improve usability and utility, inform universal principles reducing the current arbitrariness in the child’s age for own and parental access to EHRs among providers worldwide, and ensure that portals are equipped to safely and appropriately manage a wide variety of patient circumstances. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)RR2-10.2196/36158

BackgroundPatient portals that provide access to electronic health records offer a means for patients to better understand and self-manage their health. Yet, patient access to electronic health records raises many concerns among physicians, and little is known about the use practices and experiences of patients who access their electronic health records via a mature patient portal that has been available for citizens for over five years. ObjectiveWe aimed to identify patients’ experiences using a national patient portal to access their electronic health records. In particular, we focused on understanding usability-related perceptions and the benefits and challenges of reading clinical notes written by health care professionals. MethodsData were collected from 3135 patient users of the Finnish My Kanta patient portal through a web-based survey in June 2021 (response rate: 0.7%). Patients received an invitation to complete the questionnaire when they logged out of the patient portal. Respondents were asked to rate the usability of the patient portal, and the ratings were used to calculate approximations of the System Usability Scale score. Patients were also asked about the usefulness of features, and whether they had discussed the notes with health professionals. Open-ended questions were used to ask patients about their experiences of the benefits and challenges related to reading health professionals’ notes. ResultsOverall, patient evaluations of My Kanta were positive, and its usability was rated as good (System Usability Scale score approximation: mean 72.7, SD 15.9). Patients found the portal to be the most useful for managing prescriptions and viewing the results of examinations and medical notes. Viewing notes was the most frequent reason (978/3135, 31.2%) for visiting the portal. Benefits of reading the notes mentioned by patients included remembering and understanding what was said by health professionals and the instructions given during an appointment, the convenience of receiving information about health and care, the capability to check the accuracy of notes, and using the information to support self-management. However, there were challenges related to difficulty in understanding medical terminology, incorrect or inadequate notes, missing notes, and usability. ConclusionsPatients actively used medical notes to receive information to follow professionals' instructions to take care of their health, and patient access to electronic health records can support self-management. However, for the benefits to be realized, improvements in the quality and availability of medical professionals’ notes are necessary. Providing a standard information structure could help patients find the information they need. Furthermore, linking notes to vocabularies and other information sources could also improve the understandability of medical terminology; patient agency could be supported by allowing them to add comments to their notes, and patient trust of the system could be improved by allowing them to control the visibility of the professionals’ notes.

BackgroundAs patient online access to electronic health records becomes the standard, implementation of access for adolescents and parents varies across providers, regions, and countries. There is currently no international compilation of evidence to guide policy decisions in matters such as age limit for access and the extent of parent proxy access. ObjectiveThis paper presents the protocol for a scoping review of different stakeholders’ (including but not limited to end users) perspectives on use, opinions, and experiences pertaining to online access to electronic health records by parents, children, and adolescents. MethodsThis scoping review will be conducted according to the Arksey and O’Malley framework. Several databases will be used to conduct a literature search (PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycInfo), in addition to literature found outside of these databases. All authors will participate in screening identified papers, following the research question: How do different stakeholders experience parents’, children’s, and adolescents’ online access to the electronic health records of children and adolescents? Data abstraction will include but will not be limited to publication type, publication year, country, sample characteristics, setting, study aim, research question, and conclusions. The data to be analyzed are from publicly available secondary sources, so this study does not require an ethics review. ResultsThe results from this scoping review will be presented in a narrative form, and additional data on study characteristics will be presented in diagrams or tabular format. This scoping review protocol was first initiated by Uppsala University in June 2021 as part of the NordForsk-funded research project NORDeHEALTH. The results are expected to be presented in a scoping review in June 2022. The results will be disseminated through stakeholder meetings, scientific conference presentations, oral presentations to the public, and publication in a peer-reviewed journal. ConclusionsThis is, to our knowledge, the first study to map the literature on the use and experiences of parents’ and adolescents’ online access to the electronic health records of children and adolescents. The findings will describe what benefits and risks have been experienced by different stakeholders so far in different countries. A mapping of studies could inform the design and implementation of future regulations around access to patient-accessible electronic health records. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/36158

BackgroundPatient portals are increasingly being implemented worldwide to ensure that patients have timely access to their health data, including patients’ access to their electronic health records. In Sweden, the e-service Journalen is a national patient-accessible electronic health record (PAEHR), accessible on the web through the national patient portal. User characteristics and perceived benefits of using a PAEHR will influence behavioral intentions to use and adoption; however, poor usability, which increases effort expectancy, may have a negative impact. Therefore, it is of interest to further explore how users of the PAEHR Journalen perceive its usability and usefulness. ObjectiveOn the basis of the analysis of the survey respondents’ experiences of the usability of the Swedish PAEHR, this study aimed to identify specific usability problems that may need to be addressed in the future. MethodsA survey study was conducted to elicit opinions and experiences of patients using Journalen. Data were collected from June to October 2016. The questionnaire included a free-text question regarding the usability of the system, and the responses were analyzed using content analysis with a sociotechnical framework as guidance when grouping identified usability issues. ResultsDuring the survey period, 423,141 users logged into Journalen, of whom 2587 (0.61%) completed the survey (unique users who logged in; response rate 0.61%). Of the 2587 respondents, 186 (7.19%) provided free-text comments on the usability questions. The analysis resulted in 19 categories, which could be grouped under 7 of the 8 dimensions in the sociotechnical framework of Sittig and Singh. The most frequently mentioned problems were related to regional access limitations, structure and navigation of the patient portal, and language and understanding. ConclusionsAlthough the survey respondents, who were also end users of the PAEHR Journalen, were overall satisfied with its usability, they also experienced important challenges when accessing their records. For all patients to be able to reap the benefits of record access, it is essential to understand both the usability challenges they encounter and, more broadly, how policies, regulations, and technical implementation decisions affect the usefulness of record access. The results presented here are specific to the Swedish PAEHR Journalen but also provide important insights into how design and implementation of record access can be improved in any context.

BackgroundElectronic health records (EHRs) are increasingly implemented internationally, whereas digital sharing of EHRs with service users (SUs) is a relatively new practice. Studies of patient-accessible EHRs (PAEHRs)—often referred to as open notes—have revealed promising results within general medicine settings. However, studies carried out in mental health care (MHC) settings highlight several ethical and practical challenges that require further exploration. ObjectiveThis scoping review aims to map available evidence on PAEHRs in MHC. We seek to relate findings with research from other health contexts, to compare different stakeholders’ perspectives, expectations, actual experiences with PAEHRs, and identify potential research gaps. MethodsA systematic scoping review was performed using 6 electronic databases. Studies that focused on the digital sharing of clinical notes or EHRs with people affected by mental health conditions up to September 2021 were included. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Extension for Scoping Reviews guided narrative synthesis and reporting of findings. ResultsOf the 1034 papers screened, 31 were included in this review. The studies used mostly qualitative methods or surveys and were predominantly published after 2018 in the United States. PAEHRs were examined in outpatient (n=29) and inpatient settings (n=11), and a third of all research was conducted in Veterans Affairs Mental Health. Narrative synthesis allowed the integration of findings according to the different stakeholders. First, SUs reported mainly positive experiences with PAEHRs, such as increased trust in their clinician, health literacy, and empowerment. Negative experiences were related to inaccurate notes, disrespectful language use, or uncovering of undiscussed diagnoses. Second, for health care professionals, concerns outweigh the benefits of sharing EHRs, including an increased clinical burden owing to more documentation efforts and possible harm triggered by reading the notes. Third, care partners gained a better understanding of their family members’ mental problems and were able to better support them when they had access to their EHR. Finally, policy stakeholders and experts addressed ethical challenges and recommended the development of guidelines and trainings to better prepare both clinicians and SUs on how to write and read notes. ConclusionsPAEHRs in MHC may strengthen user involvement, patients’ autonomy, and shift medical treatment to a coproduced process. Acceptance issues among health care professionals align with the findings from general health settings. However, the corpus of evidence on digital sharing of EHRs with people affected by mental health conditions is limited. Above all, further research is needed to examine the clinical effectiveness, efficiency, and implementation of this sociotechnical intervention.

BackgroundTransparency is increasingly called for in health care, especially, when it comes to patients’ access to their electronic health records. In Sweden, the e-service Journalen is a national patient accessible electronic health record (PAEHR), accessible online via the national patient portal. User characteristics and perceived benefits of using a PAEHR influence behavioral intention for use and adoption, but poor usability that increases the effort expectancy can have a negative impact. It is, therefore, of interest to explore how users of the PAEHR Journalen perceive its usability and usefulness. ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to explore how the users of the Swedish PAEHR experience the usability of the system and to identify differences in these experiences based on the level of transparency of the region. MethodsA survey study was conducted to elicit opinions and experiences of patients using Journalen. The data were collected from June to October 2016. The questionnaire included questions regarding the usability of the system from the System Usability Scale (SUS). The SUS analysis was the focus of this paper. Analysis was performed on different levels: nationally looking at the whole data set and breaking it down by focusing on 2 different regions to explore differences in experienced usability based on the level of transparency. ResultsDuring the survey period, 423,141 users logged into Journalen, of which 2587 unique users completed the survey (response rate 0.61%). The total mean score for all respondents to the SUS items was 79.81 (SD 14.25), which corresponds to a system with good usability. To further explore whether the level of transparency in a region would affect the user’s experience of the usability of the system, we analyzed the 2 regions with the most respondents: Region Uppsala (the first to launch, with a high level of transparency), and Region Skåne (an early implementer, with a low level of transparency at the time of the survey). Of the participants who responded to at least 1 SUS statement, 520 stated that they had received care in Region Skåne, whereas 331 participants had received care in Region Uppsala. Uppsala’s mean SUS score was 80.71 (SD 13.41), compared with Skåne’s mean of 79.37 (SD 13.78). ConclusionsThe Swedish national PAEHR Journalen has a reasonably good usability (mean SUS score 79.81, SD 14.25); however, further research into more specific usability areas are needed to ensure usefulness and ease of use in the future. A somewhat higher SUS score for the region with high transparency compared with the region with low transparency could indicate a relationship between the perceived usability of a PAEHR and the level of transparency offered, but further research on the relationship between transparency and usability is required.

Abstract Background This study explores opinions and experiences of people with Parkinson’s disease (PwP) in Sweden of using self-tracking. Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative condition entailing varied and changing symptoms and side effects that can be a challenge to manage optimally. Patients’ self-tracking has demonstrated potential in other diseases, but we know little about PD self-tracking. The aim of this study was therefore to explore the opinions and experiences of PwP in Sweden of using self-tracking for PD. Method A mixed methods approach was used, combining qualitative data from seven interviews with quantitative data from a survey to formulate a model for self-tracking in PD. In total 280 PwP responded to the survey, 64% (n = 180) of which had experience from self-tracking. Result We propose a model for self-tracking in PD which share distinctive characteristics with the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle for healthcare improvement. PwP think that tracking takes a lot of work and the right individual balance between burdens and benefits needs to be found. Some strategies have here been identified; to focus on positive aspects rather than negative, to find better solutions for their selfcare, and to increase the benefits through improved tools and increased use of self-tracking results in the dialogue with healthcare. Conclusion The main identified benefits are that self-tracking gives PwP a deeper understanding of their own specific manifestations of PD and contributes to a more effective decision making regarding their own selfcare. The process of self-tracking also enables PwP to be more active in communicating with healthcare. Tracking takes a lot of work and there is a need to find the right balance between burdens and benefits.

Abstract Background Patients and citizens need access to their health information to get a retrospective as well as a prospective view on their care and rehabilitation processes. However, patients’ health information is stored in several health information systems and interoperability problems often hamper accessibility. In Sweden a national health information exchange (HIE) platform has been developed that enables information exchange between different health information systems. The aim of this study is to explore the opportunities and limitations of accessing and interacting with important health information through the Swedish national HIE platform. Methods A single case study approach was used for this study as an in-depth understanding of the subject was needed. A fictive patient case with a pseudo-name was created based on an interview with a stroke coordinator in Stockholm County. Information access through the national health information exchange platform and available service contracts and application programming interfaces were studied using different scenarios. Results Based on the scenarios created in this study, patients would be able to access some health related information from their electronic health records using the national health information exchange platform. However, there is necessary information which is not retrievable as it is either stored in electronic health records and eHealth services which are not connected to the national health information exchange platform or there is no service contract developed for these types of information. In addition, patients are not able to share information with healthcare professionals. Conclusion The national Swedish HIE platform provides the building blocks needed to allow patients online access to their health information in a fragmented and distributed health system. However, more complex interaction scenarios allowing patients to communicate with their health care providers or to update their health related information are not yet supported. Therefore it is of great importance to involve patients throughout the design and evaluation of eHealth services on both national and local levels to ensure that their needs for interoperability and information exchange are met.

Background: Patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) and associated national policies have increasingly been set up over the past two decades. Still little is known about the most effective strategy for developing and implementing PAEHRs. There are many stakeholders to take into account, and previous research focuses on the viewpoints of patients and healthcare professionals. Many known barriers and challenges could be solved by involving end-users in the development and implementation process. This study therefore compares barriers and facilitators for PAEHR development and implementation, both general and specific for patient involvement, that were present in Sweden and the Netherlands.Methods: There were a total of 14 semi-structured interviews with 16 key informants from both countries, on which content analysis was performed. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to guide both the construction of the interview guides and the content analysis.Outcomes: The main barriers present in both countries are resistance from healthcare professionals and technical barriers regarding electronic health record systems and vendors. Facilitators varied across the two contexts, where the national infrastructure and program management were highlighted as facilitators in Sweden and stakeholder engagement (including patients and healthcare professionals) was described as a facilitator in both contexts. Strong leadership was also described as a critical success factor, especially when faced with healthcare professional resistance.Conclusion: Most of the major barriers and facilitators from both countries are covered in existing literature. This study, however, identified factors that can be seen as more practical and that would not have arisen from interviews with patients or physicians. Recommendations for policymakers include keeping the mentioned barriers in mind from the start of development and paving the way for facilitators, mainly strict policies, learning from peer implementers, and patient involvement, when possible. Implementers should focus on strong decision-making and project management and on preparing the healthcare organization for the PAEHR.

From April 5, 2021, as part of the 21st Century Cures Act, all providers in the United States must offer patients access to the medical information housed in their electronic records. Via secure health portals, patients can log in to access lab and test results, lists of prescribed medications, referral appointments, and the narrative reports written by clinicians (so-called open notes). As US providers implement this practice innovation, we describe six promising ways in which patients' access to their notes might help address problems that either emerged with or were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

ImportanceAs of April 5, 2021, as part of the 21st Century Cures Act, new federal rules in the U.S. mandate that providers offer patients access to their online clinical records.ObjectiveTo solicit the view of an international panel of experts on the effects on mental health patients, including possible benefits and harms, of accessing their clinical notes.DesignAn online 3-round Delphi poll.SettingOnline.ParticipantsInternational experts identified as clinicians, chief medical information officers, patient advocates, and informaticians with extensive experience and/or research knowledge about patient access to mental health notes.Main outcomes, and measuresAn expert-generated consensus on the benefits and risks of sharing mental health notes with patients.ResultsA total of 70 of 92 (76%) experts from 6 countries responded to Round 1. A qualitative review of responses yielded 88 distinct items: 42 potential benefits, and 48 potential harms. A total of 56 of 70 (80%) experts responded to Round 2, and 52 of 56 (93%) responded to Round 3. Consensus was reached on 65 of 88 (74%) of survey items. There was consensus that offering online access to mental health notes could enhance patients' understanding about their diagnosis, care plan, and rationale for treatments, and that access could enhance patient recall and sense of empowerment. Experts also agreed that blocking mental health notes could lead to greater harms including increased feelings of stigmatization. However, panelists predicted there could be an increase in patients demanding changes to their clinical notes, and that mental health clinicians would be less detailed/accurate in documentation.Conclusions and relevanceThis iterative process of survey responses and ratings yielded consensus that there would be multiple benefits and few harms to patients from accessing their mental health notes. Questions remain about the impact of open notes on professional autonomy, and further empirical work into this practice innovation is warranted.

Purpose: In this qualitative interview study we investigated the experiences of family members to cancer patients. Our objective was to explore and to differentiate their needs from the needs of cancer patients. Methods: Five focus groups and six individual narrative interviews with 17 family members to cancer patients in Sweden were conducted and compared with 19 cancer patient interviews. Our analysis was inspired by classic grounded theory. Results: Family members to cancer patients expressed own morbidity connected to high stress levels and difficulties in recognizing own stress due to ongoing comparisons with the cancer patient. Family members were trapped in a momentary terror-like situation where they became their sick relative’s safety net. A percieved inability to improve their loved one’s well being contributed to a feeling of guilt. The longing for it all to end was encumbered with shame since the end included possible death. Conclusions: By recognizing cancer as a disease striking both body and relationships, family members are given precedence over their own struggles, differentiated from the patient’s experiences. We define differences in needs between cancer patients and family members. Family members to cancer patients may be supported in developing balancing strategies towards less stress, increased safety and moments of contentment.

Introduction: Lack of appropriate electronic tools for supporting patient involvement and collaboration with care professionals is a problem in health care.Methods: Care and rehabilitation processes of post-discharge stroke patients were analysed using the concept of interaction points where patients, next-of-kin and care professionals interact and exchange information. Thirteen interviews with care professionals and five non-participatory observations were performed. Data were analysed using content analysis and modelling of interaction points in the patient journey.Results: Patient participation and interaction patterns vary; patients requiring home care have a passive role and next-of-kin or nurses become advocates by coordinating care on behalf of the patient, whereas patients who are able to visit primary care coordinate their own care by initiating interactions. Important categories of participation include the following: participation in care planning, in monitoring risk factors and in rehabilitation planning.Conclusions: Designing a supportive electronic tool requires understanding the interactions and patients’ activity levels at each interaction point. A tool for patients with higher activity level should support them to coordinate their own care, whereas for a less-active patient group, the tool could focus on supporting next-of-kin and care professionals in motivating, guiding and including passive patients in their care and rehabilitation processes.

Introduction: The coexistence of different information systems that are unable to communicate is a persistent problem in healthcare and in integrated home care in particular. Theory and methods: Physically federated integration is used for design of the underlying technical architecture to implement a mobile virtual health record for integrated home care. A user centered system development approach is followed during design and development of the system. Results: A technical platform based on a service-oriented approach where database functionality and services are separated has been developed. This guarantees flexibility with regard to changed functional demands and allows third party systems to interact with the platform in a standardized way. A physically federated integration enables point-of-care documentation, integrated presentation of information from different feeder systems, and offline access to data on handheld devices. Feeder systems deliver information in XML-files that are mapped against an ideal XML schema, published as an interface for integration with the information broker, and inserted into the mediator database. Conclusions: A seamless flow of information between both different care professionals involved in integrated home care and patients and relatives is provided through mobile information access and interaction with different feeder systems using the virtual health record.