Hanife Rexhepi

Patients’ online record access (ORA) enables patients with complex diagnoses like cancer to involve their informal caregivers in care management by sharing health information, either through proxy access functionality or informally. The extent to which cancer patients use electronic health records (EHRs) for information sharing is unknown. Using the NORDeHEALTH 2022 Patient Survey, we compared cancer and other patients’ reasons for using the EHR in Sweden. We found that although the majority of respondents did not access their records with the purpose of sharing with family or friends, cancer patients were more likely to state this as a reason than other patients, or those with no recent treatment experience. This indicates an increased need for proxy access functionality in patient portals among cancer patients.

BACKGROUND Patient accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) aim to enhance patient engagement by providing access to clinical information, thus strengthening patient-clinician relationships. In Sweden, implementation of a national PAEHR began in 2012, and reached nationwide scale-up in 2018, when all residents above the age of 16 were provided online record access (ORA). Adoption and use has seen a steady increase over time. OBJECTIVE This study compares data from two national patient surveys conducted in Sweden (in 2016 and 2022) regarding patients' experiences and usage of Patient-Accessible Electronic Health Records (PAEHRs). The aim is to explore and understand possible changes in patients’ reasons for, and perceived value of, use. The study also addresses the quality of communication with healthcare and information types provided. METHODS The Swedish national surveys were conducted in 2016 and 2022. They collected data on patients' experiences with PAEHRs, including demographic information, reasons for using PAEHRs, and perceived impacts on communication with healthcare providers. Statistical analyses, including Chi-square tests, were used to compare responses between the two surveys. RESULTS The 2016 survey included responses from 2,587 patients, while the 2022 survey included 13,008 respondents. Key findings indicate an increase in the positive perception of PAEHRs over the six years. In 2022, 72.3% of respondents reported that PAEHRs supported communication with healthcare professionals, compared to 60.0% in 2016 (p < .001). The primary reason for using PAEHRs shifted from general interest in 2016 to prepare for healthcare visits in 2022. There was also a notable increase in patients valuing access to their lab test results, from 95.0% in 2016 to 97.8% in 2022 (p < .001). Demographic analysis revealed that among those taking part in the survey, a higher proportion of older adults and individuals with higher education were among the respondents in the 2022 survey, however, the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS The study demonstrates that the overall highly positive patient attitude towards and usage of PAEHRs in 2016 persisted and was strengthened in 2022. The findings point to the growing importance of PAEHRs in enhancing patient engagement and communication with healthcare providers. This research contributes valuable insights into the evolving landscape of eHealth services and their impact on patient-centered care.

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.

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.

Background: Sharing mental health notes through patient accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) is controversial. Many psychiatric organizations and regions in Sweden have resisted the implementation, as clinicians worry about possible harms when patients are reading their notes. Despite the documented benefits of PAEHRs, there is still a lack of knowledge regarding whether patients with mental health issues could reap similar benefits of reading their notes as other patient groups. Objective: The aim of the study is to examine the use, attitudes, and experiences of patients with mental health issues by reading their notes in the PAEHR and, moreover, whether their experiences differ from other patient groups, and if so, how. Methods: A national patient survey was conducted with answers from 2587 patients from different patient groups. In total, 504 respondents (19.5%) indicated that they experienced a mental health disease. Answers from this patient group were compared to the answers from all other respondents. Survey questions related to attitudes, information usage, and effects on contacts with care were selected for analysis. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to detect groupwise differences. Results: Patients with mental health issues use PAEHRs for checking that they have received the right care (mean_mental health 2.83, SD_mental health 1.39; mean_others 2.62, SD_others 1.37; P=.002) or suspected inaccuracies (mean_mental health 2.55, SD_mental health 1.34; mean_others 2.31, SD_others 1.30; P=.001), blocking access for professionals in other specialties (mean_mental health 3.43, SD_mental health 1.46; mean_others 3.04, SD_others 1.42; P<.001), and checking which care professionals have accessed their record (mean_mental health 4.28, SD_mental health 1.14; mean_others 4.05, SD_others 1.25; P<.001) to a significantly higher degree than other patients. On the other hand, the results show that a significantly lower proportion of patients with mental health issues (mean_mental health 3.38, SD_mental health 1.21; mean_others 3.52, SD_others 1.18; P=.02) believe that PAEHRs help them in shared decision-making compared to other patient groups. Conclusions: Patients with mental health issues who took part in the survey, as a group, express some minor differences in both the use of the PAEHR and their experiences regarding its usefulness, as compared to other patients, as a group. This patient group shows a slightly higher interest in 2 types of use: checking for accuracy of care in the record and blocking access to mental health notes for professionals from other parts of the health care system. Compared to other patient groups, these patients are less likely to experience that the PAEHR is a support in shared decision-making. The study indicates that the benefits of PAEHR on a general level are the same for this patient group as for other patients. The study does not support clinicians’ worry about possible harm to this patient group. Further research is however needed.

Patients feeling offended by reading records online is a concern among healthcare professionals, however previously published work has focused on adult patients. Here, a survey was used to explore and compare experiences of offense among adolescents (15-19 years old) and young adults (20-24 years old). Findings indicated that while the ratio of those offended did not differ between adolescents and young adults, reasons for feeling offended did.

Background: Although 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. Objective: We 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. Methods: A 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. Results: In 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%). Conclusions: This 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.

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.