| 1. |
- Blease, Charlotte, et al.
(författare)
-
Experiences and opinions of general practitioners with patient online record access : an online survey in England
- 2024
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 2044-6055. ; 14:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 2. |
- Blease, Charlotte, et al.
(författare)
-
Machine learning in clinical psychology and psychotherapy education : a mixed methods pilot survey of postgraduate students at a Swiss university
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Frontiers In Public Health. - : Frontiers. - 2296-2565. ; 9
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: There is increasing use of psychotherapy apps in mental health care.Objective: This mixed methods pilot study aimed to explore postgraduate clinical psychology students' familiarity and formal exposure to topics related to artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) during their studies.Methods: In April-June 2020, we conducted a mixed-methods online survey using a convenience sample of 120 clinical psychology students enrolled in a two-year Masters' program at a Swiss University.Results: In total 37 students responded (response rate: 37/120, 31%). Among respondents, 73% (n = 27) intended to enter a mental health profession, and 97% reported that they had heard of the term “machine learning.” Students estimated 0.52% of their program would be spent on AI/ML education. Around half (46%) reported that they intended to learn about AI/ML as it pertained to mental health care. On 5-point Likert scale, students “moderately agreed” (median = 4) that AI/M should be part of clinical psychology/psychotherapy education. Qualitative analysis of students' comments resulted in four major themes on the impact of AI/ML on mental healthcare: (1) Changes in the quality and understanding of psychotherapy care; (2) Impact on patient-therapist interactions; (3) Impact on the psychotherapy profession; (4) Data management and ethical issues.Conclusions: This pilot study found that postgraduate clinical psychology students held a wide range of opinions but had limited formal education on how AI/ML-enabled tools might impact psychotherapy. The survey raises questions about how curricula could be enhanced to educate clinical psychology/psychotherapy trainees about the scope of AI/ML in mental healthcare.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Blease, Charlotte, et al.
(författare)
-
Patient Online Record Access in English Primary Care : Qualitative Survey Study of General Practitioners’ Views
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of Medical Internet Research. - : JMIR Publications. - 1438-8871. ; 25
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 5. |
- Blease, Charlotte, et al.
(författare)
-
Preparing Patients and Clinicians for Open Notes in Mental Health : Qualitative Inquiry of International Experts
- 2021
-
Ingår i: JMIR Mental Health. - : JMIR Publications. - 2368-7959. ; 8:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: In a growing number of countries worldwide, clinicians are sharing mental health notes, including psychiatry and psychotherapy notes, with patients.OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to solicit the views of experts on provider policies and patient and clinician training or guidance in relation to open notes in mental health care.METHODS: In August 2020, we conducted a web-based survey of international experts on the practice of sharing mental health notes. Experts were identified as informaticians, clinicians, chief medical information officers, patients, and patient advocates who have extensive research knowledge about or experience of providing access to or having access to mental health notes. This study undertook a qualitative descriptive analysis of experts' written responses and opinions (comments) to open-ended questions on training clinicians, patient guidance, and suggested policy regulations.RESULTS: A total of 70 of 92 (76%) experts from 6 countries responded. We identified four major themes related to opening mental health notes to patients: the need for clarity about provider policies on exemptions, providing patients with basic information about open notes, clinician training in writing mental health notes, and managing patient-clinician disagreement about mental health notes.CONCLUSIONS: This study provides timely information on policy and training recommendations derived from a wide range of international experts on how to prepare clinicians and patients for open notes in mental health. The results of this study point to the need for further refinement of exemption policies in relation to sharing mental health notes, guidance for patients, and curricular changes for students and clinicians as well as improvements aimed at enhancing patient and clinician-friendly portal design.
|
|
| 6. |
- Blease, Charlotte, et al.
(författare)
-
The benefits and harms of open notes in mental health : A Delphi survey of international experts
- 2021
-
Ingår i: PLOS ONE. - : Public Library of Science (PLoS). - 1932-6203. ; 16:10
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- IMPORTANCE: As 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.OBJECTIVE: To 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.DESIGN: An online 3-round Delphi poll.SETTING: Online.PARTICIPANTS: International 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 MEASURES: An expert-generated consensus on the benefits and risks of sharing mental health notes with patients.RESULTS: A 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 RELEVANCE: This 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.
|
|
| 7. |
- Blease, Charlotte, et al.
(författare)
-
US primary care in 2029 : A Delphi survey on the impact of machine learning
- 2020
-
Ingår i: PLOS ONE. - : Public Library of Science (PLoS). - 1932-6203. ; 15:10
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To solicit leading health informaticians' predictions about the impact of AI/ML on primary care in the US in 2029.Design: A three-round online modified Delphi poll.Participants: Twenty-nine leading health informaticians.Methods: In September 2019, health informatics experts were selected by the research team, and invited to participate the Delphi poll. Participation in each round was anonymous, and panelists were given between 4-8 weeks to respond to each round. In Round 1 open-ended questions solicited forecasts on the impact of AI/ML on: (1) patient care, (2) access to care, (3) the primary care workforce, (4) technological breakthroughs, and (5) the long-future for primary care physicians. Responses were coded to produce itemized statements. In Round 2, participants were invited to rate their agreement with each item along 7-point Likert scales. Responses were analyzed for consensus which was set at a predetermined interquartile range of ≤ 1. In Round 3 items that did not reach consensus were redistributed.Results: A total of 16 experts participated in Round 1 (16/29, 55%). Of these experts 13/16 (response rate, 81%), and 13/13 (response rate, 100%), responded to Rounds 2 and 3, respectively. As a result of developments in AI/ML by 2029 experts anticipated workplace changes including incursions into the disintermediation of physician expertise, and increased AI/ML training requirements for medical students. Informaticians also forecast that by 2029 AI/ML will increase diagnostic accuracy especially among those with limited access to experts, minorities and those with rare diseases. Expert panelists also predicted that AI/ML-tools would improve access to expert doctor knowledge.Cconclusions: This study presents timely information on informaticians' consensus views about the impact of AI/ML on US primary care in 2029. Preparation for the near-future of primary care will require improved levels of digital health literacy among patients and physicians.
|
|
| 8. |
- Bärkås, Annika, et al.
(författare)
-
Errors, Omissions, and Offenses in the Health Record of Mental Health Care Patients : Results from a Nationwide Survey in Sweden
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of Medical Internet Research. - : JMIR Publications. - 1438-8871. ; 25
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Previous 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. OBJECTIVE: The 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. METHODS: Our 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. RESULTS: Of 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. CONCLUSIONS: About 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.
|
|
| 9. |
- Bärkås, Annika, et al.
(författare)
-
Patients' Experiences of Demanded Access to Online Health Records
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. - : IOS Press. - 0926-9630 .- 1879-8365. ; 310, s. 1424-1425
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Patient-Accessible Electronic Health Records (PAEHR) is particularly controversial in mental healthcare. We aim to explore if there is any association between patients with mental health conditions and the experience of someone demanding access to their PAEHR. A chi-square test showed a significant association between group belonging and experiences of someone demanding access to the PAEHR.
|
|
| 10. |
- Bärkås, Annika, et al.
(författare)
-
Patients' Experiences of Unwanted Access to Their Online Health Records
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. - : IOS Press. - 0926-9630 .- 1879-8365. ; 302, s. 356-357, s. 356-357
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Patient-Accessible Electronic Health Records (PAEHR) are particularly disputed in mental healthcare. We aim to explore if there is any association between patients having a mental health condition and someone unwanted seeing their PAEHR. A chi-square test showed a statistically significant association between group belonging and experiences of someone unwanted seeing their PAEHR.
|
|
