| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Blease, Charlotte, et al.
(author)
-
Patients, clinicians and open notes : information blocking as a case of epistemic injustice
- 2022
-
In: Journal of Medical Ethics. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 0306-6800 .- 1473-4257. ; 48:10, s. 785-793
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In many countries, including patients are legally entitled to request copies of their clinical notes. However, this process remains time-consuming and burdensome, and it remains unclear how much of the medical record must be made available. Online access to notes offers a way to overcome these challenges and in around 10 countries worldwide, via secure web-based portals, many patients are now able to read at least some of the narrative reports written by clinicians (’open notes’). However, even in countries that have implemented the practice many clinicians have resisted the idea remaining doubtful of the value of opening notes, and anticipating patients will be confused or anxious by what they read. Against this scepticism, a growing body of qualitative and quantitative research reveals that patients derive multiple benefits from reading their notes. We address the contrasting perceptions of this practice innovation, and claim that the divergent views of patients and clinicians can be explained as a case of epistemic injustice. Using a range of evidence, we argue that patients are vulnerable to (oftentimes, non-intentional) epistemic injustice. Nonetheless, we conclude that the marginalisation of patients’ access to their health information exemplifies a form of epistemic exclusion, one with practical and ethical consequences including for patient safety.
|
|
| 3. |
- Bärkås, Annika, et al.
(author)
-
Errors, Omissions, and Offenses in the Health Record of Mental Health Care Patients : Results from a Nationwide Survey in Sweden
- 2023
-
In: Journal of Medical Internet Research. - : JMIR Publications. - 1438-8871. ; 25
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 4. |
- Bärkås, Annika
(author)
-
Patients’ Access to Their Mental Health Records : Understanding Policy, Access, and Patient Experiences
- 2024
-
Doctoral thesis (other academic/artistic)abstract
- ORA is the concept of patients' access to clinical information, which has become more widespread worldwide. When patients are provided online record access (ORA) to their health records, concerns have been raised by healthcare professionals, especially when it comes to patients with mental health diagnoses. In the general population, positive aspects appear to outweigh the negative, yet limited research has so far explored the impact of ORA in mental healthcare. The overall aim of this thesis was to explore how patients experience ORA in mental healthcare through four studies: 1) a literature review aimed to explore the current literature on the experiences of ORA among mental healthcare patients, care partners, and healthcare professionals, 2) a document analysis combined with key stakeholder email interviews that aimed to explore to what extent ORA in mental healthcare has been implemented in Sweden including national and local policy regulations, 3) an online patient survey study aimed to understand mental healthcare patients' experiences with ORA in Sweden, Estonia, Finland, and Norway, and 4) an online patient survey study aimed to understand if and how patients with mental health conditions experiences of ORA differs from patients in other healthcare settings. More patients reported positive experiences with ORA in mental healthcare than negative experiences. Common benefits of ORA included, among others, a greater sense of control over their care, improved understanding of their mental health diagnosis, and better adherence to appointments. Despite patients' predominant positive experiences, only 17 out of 21 regions in Sweden offered ORA in mental healthcare in 2021. Additionally, many patients experienced errors and omissions and felt offended by the content of their health records. Mental healthcare patients experienced this at a higher rate than patients in other healthcare settings.In conclusion, mental healthcare patients have higher rates of negative experiences of ORA compared to patients in other healthcare settings. However, patients' experiences of ORA are still predominantly positive among both patient groups. Yet, in 2021, only 17 regions offered patients ORA in mental healthcare. Denying mental healthcare patients ORA to protect them from negative experiences could instead increase stigma in this patient group.
|
|
| 5. |
- Bärkås, Annika, et al.
(author)
-
Patients’ access to their psychiatric notes : Current policies and practices in Sweden
- 2021
-
In: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. - : MDPI. - 1661-7827 .- 1660-4601. ; 18:17
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Patients’ access to electronic health records (EHRs) is debated worldwide, and access to psychiatry records is even more criticized. There is a nationwide service in Sweden which offers all citizens the opportunity to read their EHR, including clinical notes. This study aims to explore Swedish national and local policy regulations regarding patients’ access to their psychiatric notes and describe to what extent patients currently are offered access to them. The rationale behind the study is that current policies and current practices may differ between the 21 self-governing regions, although there is a national regulation. We gathered web-based information from policy documents and regulations from each region’s website. We also conducted key stakeholder interviews with respondents from the regions and cross-regional private care providers, using a qualitative approach. The results show that 17 of 21 regions share psychiatric notes with patients, where forensic psychiatric care was the most excluded psychiatric care setting. All private care providers reported that they mainly follow the regions’ guidelines. Our findings show that regional differences concerning sharing psychiatric notes persist, despite Swedish regulations and a national policy that stipulates equal care for everyone. The differences, however, appear to have decreased over time, and we report evidence that the regions are moving toward increased transparency for psychiatry patients.
|
|
| 6. |
- Bärkås, Annika, et al.
(author)
-
Patients' Access to Their Psychiatric Records : A Comparison of Four Countries
- 2022
-
In: Challenges of Trustable AI and Added-Value on Health. - Amsterdam; Berlin; Washington, DC : IOS Press. - 9781643682846 - 9781643682853 ; 294, s. 510-514
-
Conference paper (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Several Nordic and Baltic countries are forerunners in the digitalization of patient ehealth services and have since long implemented psychiatric records as parts of the ehealth services. There are country-specific differences in what clinical information is offered to patients concerning their online patient accessible psychiatric records. This study explores national differences in Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Estonia in patient access to their psychiatric records. Data was collected through a socio-technical data collection template developed during a workshop series and then analyzed in a cross-country comparison focusing on items related to psychiatry records online. The results show that psychiatric records online are offered to patients in all four countries, and provide the same functionality and similar psychiatry information. Overall, the conclusion is that experiences of various functionalities should be scrutinized to promote transparency of psychiatric records as part of the national eHealth services to increase equality of care and patient empowerment.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Cajander, Åsa, et al.
(author)
-
Worlds Apart - Doctors’ Technological Frames and Online Medical Records
- 2015
-
In: INTERACT 2015 adjunct proceedings. - Bamberg : University of Bamberg Press. - 9783863093525 - 9783863093532 ; , s. 357-367
-
Conference paper (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The ability of individuals to access and use their online medical records serves as one of the cornerstones of national efforts to increase patient empowerment and improve health outcomes. However, the launch of online medical records in Uppsala County, Sweden, has been criticized by the medical profession and the local doctors’ union. The aim of this paper is therefore to present the results from an exploratory study where interviews with two oncologists are analysed and discussed based on the theory of Technological Frames and Patient Empowerment. The results indicate that medical doctors have different assumptions and perspectives that affect their use of technology and how they view patient empowerment in everyday clinical work.
|
|
| 9. |
- Eriksson, Nomie, Biträdande professor, 1955-, et al.
(author)
-
How Innovation Systems Promote and Hinder Innovations in Healthcare - a Swedish Case
- 2024
-
In: Journal of Innovation Management. - : Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Engenharia (FEUP). - 2183-0606. ; 12:1, s. 172-187
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Healthcare organizations must remain up-to-date when healthcare systems are in constant flux. One way to meet challenges is through innovations. The aim of this study is to explore what promotes and hinders the implementation of innovation in healthcare’s complex organizational environment. An innovation system was studied through qualitative interviews with nine respondents. The results show that the implementation and adoption of innovations in healthcare are complex. The complexity of the innovation determines the likelihood and speed of the adoption among healthcare professionals. Promoters such as human and financial capital were seen as critical for the sustainability of the innovation. Evaluating the innovation through scientific processes was also important to gain legitimacy and is seen as an important contribution to research. The identifying promoters and hindrances are practical implications to prompt reflection on healthcare innovations among managers and healthcare professionals.
|
|
| 10. |
- Fagerlund, A. J., et al.
(author)
-
Experiences from patients in mental healthcare accessing their electronic health records : Results from a cross-national survey in Estonia, Finland, Norway, and Sweden
- 2024
-
In: BMC Psychiatry. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 1471-244X. ; 24:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Patients’ online record access (ORA) enables patients to read and use their health data through online digital solutions. One such solution, patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) have been implemented in Estonia, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. While accumulated research has pointed to many potential benefits of ORA, its application in mental healthcare (MHC) continues to be contested. The present study aimed to describe MHC users’ overall experiences with national PAEHR services. Methods: The study analysed the MHC-part of the NORDeHEALTH 2022 Patient Survey, a large-scale multi-country survey. The survey consisted of 45 questions, including demographic variables and questions related to users’ experiences with ORA. We focused on the questions concerning positive experiences (benefits), negative experiences (errors, omissions, offence), and breaches of security and privacy. Participants were included in this analysis if they reported receiving mental healthcare within the past two years. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise data, and percentages were calculated on available data. Results: 6,157 respondents were included. In line with previous research, almost half (45%) reported very positive experiences with ORA. A majority in each country also reported improved trust (at least 69%) and communication (at least 71%) with healthcare providers. One-third (29.5%) reported very negative experiences with ORA. In total, half of the respondents (47.9%) found errors and a third (35.5%) found omissions in their medical documentation. One-third (34.8%) of all respondents also reported being offended by the content. When errors or omissions were identified, about half (46.5%) reported that they took no action. There seems to be differences in how patients experience errors, omissions, and missing information between the countries. A small proportion reported instances where family or others demanded access to their records (3.1%), and about one in ten (10.7%) noted that unauthorised individuals had seen their health information. Conclusions: Overall, MHC patients reported more positive experiences than negative, but a large portion of respondents reported problems with the content of the PAEHR. Further research on best practice in implementation of ORA in MHC is therefore needed, to ensure that all patients may reap the benefits while limiting potential negative consequences.
|
|
