Zoë Fritz1, Alex Schlindwein2, Anne-Marie Slowther3. 1. Wellcome fellow in society and ethics, The Healthcare Improvement Studies (THIS) Institute, Cambridge, UK and Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK zoe.fritz@addenbrookes.nhs.uk. 2. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 3. Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient and professional views about the impact of providing full real-time access to the medical record in the in-hospital setting are unknown. METHODS: Likert-scale and free-text validated questionnaire survey of physicians and patients from acute medical units in two hospitals. The questionnaire explored recent experiences; views on the formation of trust, and views on sharing either the entire medical record or a summary. RESULTS: Two-hundred and forty-eight patient questionnaires (62% response rate) and 32 physician questionnaires (21% response rate) were returned. Twenty-seven per cent of patients did not recall being told their diagnosis. Doctors and patients differed on what practices that they believed built trust.Eighty-one per cent of patients supported the idea of having access to the full medical record (for empowerment; the right to information about oneself; as an aide-memoire for discussion). Doctors feared it might provoke anxiety and change the nature of what was written. A written lay summary record was preferred by doctors and patients. CONCLUSIONS: The current system of providing information verbally to patients is inadequate. Patients want more information and are less concerned than physicians about potential negative effects of real-time access to their records. Patient access to medical records (in both full and summary forms) should be evaluated.
BACKGROUND: Patient and professional views about the impact of providing full real-time access to the medical record in the in-hospital setting are unknown. METHODS: Likert-scale and free-text validated questionnaire survey of physicians and patients from acute medical units in two hospitals. The questionnaire explored recent experiences; views on the formation of trust, and views on sharing either the entire medical record or a summary. RESULTS: Two-hundred and forty-eight patient questionnaires (62% response rate) and 32 physician questionnaires (21% response rate) were returned. Twenty-seven per cent of patients did not recall being told their diagnosis. Doctors and patients differed on what practices that they believed built trust.Eighty-one per cent of patients supported the idea of having access to the full medical record (for empowerment; the right to information about oneself; as an aide-memoire for discussion). Doctors feared it might provoke anxiety and change the nature of what was written. A written lay summary record was preferred by doctors and patients. CONCLUSIONS: The current system of providing information verbally to patients is inadequate. Patients want more information and are less concerned than physicians about potential negative effects of real-time access to their records. Patient access to medical records (in both full and summary forms) should be evaluated.
Authors: Janet Woollen; Jennifer Prey; Lauren Wilcox; Alexander Sackeim; Susan Restaino; Syed T Raza; Suzanne Bakken; Steven Feiner; George Hripcsak; David Vawdrey Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Tom Delbanco; Jan Walker; Sigall K Bell; Jonathan D Darer; Joann G Elmore; Nadine Farag; Henry J Feldman; Roanne Mejilla; Long Ngo; James D Ralston; Stephen E Ross; Neha Trivedi; Elisabeth Vodicka; Suzanne G Leveille Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2012-10-02 Impact factor: 25.391