Opening a "Can of Worms" to Explore the Public's Hopes and Fears About Health Care Data Sharing: Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that health care data sharing may strengthen care coordination, improve quality and safety, and reduce costs. However, to achieve efficient and meaningful adoption of health care data-sharing initiatives, it is necessary to engage all stakeholders, from health care professionals to patients. Although previous work has assessed health care professionals' perceptions of data sharing, perspectives of the general public and particularly of seldom heard groups have yet to be fully assessed. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the views of the public, particularly their hopes and concerns, around health care data sharing. METHODS: An original, immersive public engagement interactive experience was developed-The Can of Worms installation-in which participants were prompted to reflect about data sharing through listening to individual stories around health care data sharing. A multidisciplinary team with expertise in research, public involvement, and human-centered design developed this concept. The installation took place in three separate events between November 2018 and November 2019. A combination of convenience and snowball sampling was used in this study. Participants were asked to fill self-administered feedback cards and to describe their hopes and fears about the meaningful use of data in health care. The transcripts were compiled verbatim and systematically reviewed by four independent reviewers using the thematic analysis method to identify emerging themes. RESULTS: Our approach exemplifies the potential of using interdisciplinary expertise in research, public involvement, and human-centered design to tell stories, collect perspectives, and spark conversations around complex topics in participatory digital medicine. A total of 352 qualitative feedback cards were collected, each reflecting participants' hopes and fears for health care data sharing. Thematic analyses identified six themes under hopes: enablement of personal access and ownership, increased interoperability and collaboration, generation of evidence for better and safer care, improved timeliness and efficiency, delivery of more personalized care, and equality. The five main fears identified included inadequate security and exploitation, data inaccuracy, distrust, discrimination and inequality, and less patient-centered care. CONCLUSIONS: This study sheds new light on the main hopes and fears of the public regarding health care data sharing. Importantly, our results highlight novel concerns from the public, particularly in terms of the impact on health disparities, both at international and local levels, and on delivering patient-centered care. Incorporating the knowledge generated and focusing on co-designing solutions to tackle these concerns is critical to engage the public as active contributors and to fully leverage the potential of health care data use.

Health Care Professionals' Perspectives on the Secondary Use of Health Records to Improve Quality and Safety of Care in England: Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Health care professionals (HCPs) are often patients' first point of contact in what concerns the communication of the purposes, benefits, and risks of sharing electronic health records (EHRs) for nondirect care purposes. Their engagement is fundamental to ensure patients' buy-in and a successful implementation of health care data sharing schemes. However, their views on this subject are seldom evaluated. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore HCPs' perspectives on the secondary uses of health care data in England. Specifically, we aimed to assess their knowledge on its purposes and the main concerns about data sharing processes. METHODS: A total of 30 interviews were conducted between March 27, 2017, and April 7, 2017, using a Web-based interview platform and following a topic guide with open-ended questions. The participants represented a variety of geographic locations across England (London, West Midlands, East of England, North East England, and Yorkshire and the Humber), covering both primary and secondary care services. The transcripts were compiled verbatim and systematically reviewed by 2 independent reviewers using the framework analysis method to identify emerging themes. RESULTS: HCPs were knowledgeable about the possible secondary uses of data and highlighted its importance for patient profiling and tailored care, research, quality assurance, public health, and service delivery planning purposes. Main concerns toward data sharing included data accuracy, patients' willingness to share their records, challenges on obtaining free and informed consent, data security, lack of adequacy or understanding of current policies, and potential patient exposure and exploitation. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest a high level of HCPs' understanding about the purposes of data sharing for secondary purposes; however, some concerns still remain. A better understanding of HCPs' knowledge and concerns could inform national communication policies and improve tailoring to maximize efficiency and improve patients' buy-in.

Clinical Simulation in the Regulation of Software as a Medical Device: An eDelphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Accelerated digitalization in the health sector requires the development of appropriate evaluation methods to ensure that digital health technologies (DHTs) are safe and effective. Software as a medical device (SaMD) is a commonly used DHT by clinicians to provide care to patients. Traditional research methods for evaluating health care products, such as randomized clinical trials, may not be suitable for DHTs, such as SaMD. However, evidence to show their safety and efficacy is needed by regulators before they can be used in practice. Clinical simulation can be used by researchers to test SaMD in an agile and low-cost way; yet, there is limited research on criteria to assess the robustness of simulations and, subsequently, their relevance for a regulatory decision. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to gain consensus on the criteria that should be used to assess clinical simulation from a regulatory perspective when it is used to generate evidence for SaMD. METHODS: An eDelphi study approach was chosen to develop a set of criteria to assess clinical simulation when used to evaluate SaMD. Participants were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling based on their experience and knowledge in relevant sectors. They were guided through an initial scoping questionnaire with key themes identified from the literature to obtain a comprehensive list of criteria. Participants voted upon these criteria in 2 Delphi rounds, with criteria being excluded if consensus was not met. Participants were invited to add qualitative comments during rounds and qualitative analysis was performed on the comments gathered during the first round. Consensus was predefined by 2 criteria: if <10% of the panelists deemed the criteria as "not important" or "not important at all" and >60% "important" or "very important." RESULTS: In total, 33 international experts in the digital health field, including academics, regulators, policy makers, and industry representatives, completed both Delphi rounds, and 43 criteria gained consensus from the participants. The research team grouped these criteria into 7 domains-background and context, overall study design, study population, delivery of the simulation, fidelity, software and artificial intelligence, and study analysis. These 7 domains were formulated into the simulation for regulation of SaMD framework. There were key areas of concern identified by participants regarding the framework criteria, such as the importance of how simulation fidelity is achieved and reported and the avoidance of bias throughout all stages. CONCLUSIONS: This study proposes the simulation for regulation of SaMD framework, developed through an eDelphi consensus process, to evaluate clinical simulation when used to assess SaMD. Future research should prioritize the development of safe and effective SaMD, while implementing and refining the framework criteria to adapt to new challenges.

Usability and Feasibility Evaluation of a Web-Based and Offline Cybersecurity Resource for Health Care Organizations (The Essentials of Cybersecurity in Health Care Organizations Framework Resource): Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Cybersecurity is a growing challenge for health systems worldwide as the rapid adoption of digital technologies has led to increased cyber vulnerabilities with implications for patients and health providers. It is critical to develop workforce awareness and training as part of a safety culture and continuous improvement within health care organizations. However, there are limited open-access, health care-specific resources to help organizations at different levels of maturity develop their cybersecurity practices. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the usability and feasibility of the Essentials of Cybersecurity in Health Care Organizations (ECHO) framework resource and evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats associated with implementing the resource at the organizational level. METHODS: A mixed methods, cross-sectional study of the acceptability and usability of the ECHO framework resource was undertaken. The research model was developed based on the technology acceptance model. Members of the Imperial College Leading Health Systems Network and other health care organizations identified through the research teams' networks were invited to participate. Study data were collected through web-based surveys 1 month and 3 months from the date the ECHO framework resource was received by the participants. Quantitative data were analyzed using R software (version 4.2.1). Descriptive statistics were calculated using the mean and 95% CIs. To determine significant differences between the distribution of answers by comparing results from the 2 survey time points, 2-tailed t tests were used. Qualitative data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel. Thematic analysis used deductive and inductive approaches to capture themes and concepts. RESULTS: A total of 16 health care organizations participated in the study. The ECHO framework resource was well accepted and useful for health care organizations, improving their understanding of cybersecurity as a priority area, reducing threats, and enabling organizational planning. Although not all participants were able to implement the resource as part of information computing technology (ICT) cybersecurity activities, those who did were positive about the process of change. Learnings from the implementation process included the usefulness of the resource for raising awareness and ease of use based on familiarity with other standards, guidelines, and tools. Participants noted that several sections of the framework were difficult to operationalize due to costs or budget constraints, human resource limitations, leadership support, stakeholder engagement, and limited time. CONCLUSIONS: The research identified the acceptability and usability of the ECHO framework resource as a health-focused cybersecurity resource for health care organizations. As cybersecurity in health care organizations is everyone's responsibility, there is potential for the framework resource to be used by staff with varied job roles. Future research needs to explore how it can be updated for ICT staff and implemented in practice and how educational materials on different aspects of the framework could be developed.

How NHS data could benefit us all and how to build the trust needed to make it happen.

The pandemic has accelerated the data-sharing conversation and patients are increasingly receptive to sharing data, but missteps in this area could undermine public trust. This article outlines public concerns, lessons learned from previous unsuccessful activities, and the potential for secure data environments, which will be vital for the UK to maximise benefits for patients and the NHS.

Evolution of the clinical simulation approach to assess digital health technologies.

Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) has catalysed digital transformation in the health space. However, it remains a challenge to generate timely and cost-effective evidence for digital health technologies (DHTs) to ensure their safety and efficacy. Traditional methods, such as randomised controlled trials (RCTs), are ill-suited for assessing DHTs for reasons of speed, agility, cost and context. Clinical simulation using high-fidelity synthetic patient cases is emerging as a promising yet underexplored method to evaluate DHTs. It offers several advantages, including conducting remote multi-site testing at low cost, inclusion of high-risk patient profiles that are usually excluded from RCTs and adaptability to different local clinical settings. This article shares some of the insights from studies using clinical simulation conducted at the Institute of Global Health Innovation (IGHI) at Imperial College London and describes the evolution of this approach as well as future opportunities.

Identifying benefits and concerns with using digital health services during COVID-19: Evidence from a hospital-based patient survey.

Despite large-scale adoption during COVID-19, patient perceptions on the benefits and potential risks with receiving care through digital technologies have remained largely unexplored. A quantitative content analysis of responses to a questionnaire (N = 6766) conducted at a multi-site acute trust in London (UK), was adopted to identify commonly reported benefits and concerns. Patients reported a range of promising benefits beyond immediate usage during COVID-19, including ease of access; support for disease and care management; improved timeliness of access and treatment; and better prioritisation of healthcare resources. However, in addition to known risks such as data security and inequity in access, our findings also illuminate some less studied concerns, including perceptions of compromised safety; negative impacts on patient-clinician relationships; and difficulties in interpreting health information provided through electronic health records and mHealth apps. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

Health and Care Data: Approaches to data linkage for evidence-informed policy.

An indispensable prerequisite for answering research questions in health services research is the availability and accessibility of comprehensive, high-quality data. It can be assumed that health services research in the coming years will be increasingly based on data linkage, i.e., the linking, or connecting, of several data sources based on suitable common key variables. A range of approaches to data collection, storage, linkage and availability exists across countries, particularly for secondary research purposes (i.e., the use of data initially collected for other purposes), such as health systems research. The main goal of this review is to develop an overview of, and gain insights into, current approaches to linking data sources in the context of health services research, with the view to inform policy, based on existing practices in high-income countries in Europe and beyond. In doing so, another objective is to provide lessons for countries looking for possible or alternative approaches to data linkage. Thirteen country case studies of data linkage approaches were selected and analysed. Rather than being comprehensive, this review aimed to identify varied and potentially useful case studies to showcase different approaches to data linkage worldwide. A conceptual framework was developed to guide the selection and description of case studies. Information was first identified and collected from publicly available sources and a profile was then created for each country and each case study; these profiles were forwarded to appropriate country experts for validation and completion. The report presents an overview of the included countries and their case studies (Chapter 2), with key data per country and case study in the appendices. This is followed by a closer look at the possibilities of using routine data (Chapter 3); the different approaches to linkage (Chapter 4); the different access routes for researchers (Chapter 5); the use of data for research from electronic patient or health records (Chapter 6); foundational considerations related to data safety, privacy and governance (Chapter 7); recent developments in cross-border data sharing and the European Health Data Space (Chapter 8); and considerations of changes and responses catalysed by the COVID-19 pandemic as related to the generation and secondary use of data (Chapter 9). The review ends with overall conclusions on the necessary characteristics of data to inform research relevant for policy and highlights some insights to inspire possible future solutions - less or more disruptive - for countries looking to expand their use of data (Chapter 10). It emphasises that investing in data linkage for secondary use will not only contribute to the strengthening of national health systems, but also promote international cooperation and contribute to the international visibility of scientific excellence.

The role of wirelessly observed therapy in improving treatment adherence.

Wirelessly observed therapy (WOT) offers a novel way of monitoring treatment adherence. In this article, we provide an overview of how this technology works and discuss the evidence for its clinical effectiveness in tuberculosis, hepatitis C virus infection, mental health and cardiovascular disease. We consider the acceptability of WOT to patients as well as potential issues relating to patient autonomy and data protection. We highlight the current limited data on its economic impact and reflect on its future role in patient care.

Evaluation of a clinical decision support tool for matching cancer patients to clinical trials using simulation-based research.

There is a growing need for alternative methodologies to evaluate digital health solutions in a short timeframe and at relatively low cost. Simulation-based research (SBR) methods have been proposed as an alternative methodology for evaluating digital health solutions; however, few studies have described the applicability of SBR methods to evaluate such solutions. This study used SBR to evaluate the feasibility and user experience of a clinical decision support (CDS) tool used for matching cancer patients to clinical trials. Twenty-five clinicians and research staff were recruited to match 10 synthetic patient cases to clinical trials using both the CDS tool and publicly available online trial databases. Participants were significantly more likely to report having sufficient time (p = 0.020) and to require less mental effort (p = 0.001) to complete trial matching with the CDS tool. Participants required less time for trial matching using the CDS tool, but the difference was not significant (p = 0.093). Most participants reported that they had sufficient guidance to participate in the simulations (96%). This study demonstrates the use of SBR methods is a feasible approach to evaluate digital health solutions and to collect valuable user feedback without the need for implementation in clinical practice. Further research is required to demonstrate the feasibility of using SBR to conduct remote evaluations of digital health solutions.

General practitioners' perceptions of using virtual primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic: An international cross-sectional survey study.

With the onset of COVID-19, general practitioners (GPs) and patients worldwide swiftly transitioned from face-to-face to digital remote consultations. There is a need to evaluate how this global shift has impacted patient care, healthcare providers, patient and carer experience, and health systems. We explored GPs' perspectives on the main benefits and challenges of using digital virtual care. GPs across 20 countries completed an online questionnaire between June-September 2020. GPs' perceptions of main barriers and challenges were explored using free-text questions. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. A total of 1,605 respondents participated in our survey. The benefits identified included reducing COVID-19 transmission risks, guaranteeing access and continuity of care, improved efficiency, faster access to care, improved convenience and communication with patients, greater work flexibility for providers, and hastening the digital transformation of primary care and accompanying legal frameworks. Main challenges included patients' preference for face-to-face consultations, digital exclusion, lack of physical examinations, clinical uncertainty, delays in diagnosis and treatment, overuse and misuse of digital virtual care, and unsuitability for certain types of consultations. Other challenges include the lack of formal guidance, higher workloads, remuneration issues, organisational culture, technical difficulties, implementation and financial issues, and regulatory weaknesses. At the frontline of care delivery, GPs can provide important insights on what worked well, why, and how during the pandemic. Lessons learned can be used to inform the adoption of improved virtual care solutions and support the long-term development of platforms that are more technologically robust and secure.

Use and impact of virtual primary care on quality and safety: The public's perspectives during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: With the onset of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), primary care has swiftly transitioned from face-to-face to virtual care, yet it remains largely unknown how this has impacted the quality and safety of care. We aim to evaluate patient use of virtual primary care models during COVID-19, including change in uptake, perceived impact on the quality and safety of care and willingness of future use. METHODOLOGY: An online cross-sectional survey was administered to the public across the United Kingdom, Sweden, Italy and Germany. McNemar tests were conducted to test pre- and post-pandemic differences in uptake for each technology. One-way analysis of variance was conducted to examine patient experience ratings and perceived impacts on healthcare quality and safety across demographic characteristics. RESULTS: Respondents (n = 6326) reported an increased use of telephone consultations ( + 6.3%, p < .001), patient-initiated services ( + 1.5%, n = 98, p < 0.001), video consultations ( + 1.4%, p < .001), remote triage ( + 1.3, p < 0.001) and secure messaging systems ( + 0.9%, p = .019). Experience rates using virtual care technologies were higher for men (2.4 ± 1.0 vs. 2.3 ± 0.9, p < .001), those with higher literacy (2.8 ± 1.0 vs. 2.3 ± 0.9, p < .001), and participants from Germany (2.5 ± 0.9, p < .001). Healthcare timeliness and efficiency were the dimensions most often reported as being positively impacted by virtual technologies (60.2%, n = 2793 and 55.7%, n = 2,401, respectively), followed by effectiveness (46.5%, n = 1802), safety (45.5%, n = 1822), patient-centredness (45.2%, n = 45.2) and equity (42.9%, n = 1726). Interest in future use was highest for telephone consultations (55.9%), patient-initiated digital services (56.1%), secure messaging systems (43.4%), online triage (35.1%), video consultations (37.0%) and chat consultations (30.1%), although significant variation was observed between countries and patient characteristics. DISCUSSION: Future work must examine the drivers and determinants of positive experiences using remote care to co-create a supportive environment that ensures equitable adoption and use. Comparative analysis between countries and health systems offers the opportunity for policymakers to learn from best practices internationally.

Evaluating the Impact of COVID-19 on the Adoption of Virtual Care in General Practice in 20 Countries (inSIGHT): Protocol and Rationale Study.

BACKGROUND: In recent decades, virtual care has emerged as a promising option to support primary care delivery. However, despite the potential, adoption rates remained low. With the outbreak of COVID-19, it has suddenly been pushed to the forefront of care delivery. As we progress into the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a need and opportunity to review the impact remote care had in primary care settings and reassess its potential future role. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) and family doctors on the (1) use of virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic, (2) perceived impact on quality and safety of care, and (3) essential factors for high-quality and sustainable use of virtual care in the future. METHODS: This study used an online cross-sectional questionnaire completed by GPs distributed across 20 countries. The survey was hosted in Qualtrics and distributed using email, social media, and the researchers' personal contact networks. GPs were eligible for the survey if they were working mainly in primary care during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic. Descriptive statistical analysis will be performed for quantitative variables, and relationships between the use of virtual care and perceptions on impact on quality and safety of care and participants' characteristics may be explored. Qualitative data (free-text responses) will be analyzed using framework analysis. RESULTS: Data collection took place from June 2020 to September 2020. As of this manuscript's submission, a total of 1605 GP respondents participated in the questionnaire. Further data analysis is currently ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: The study will provide a comprehensive overview of the availability of virtual care technologies, perceived impact on quality and safety of care, and essential factors for high-quality future use. In addition, a description of the underlying factors that influence this adoption and perceptions, in both individual GP and family doctor characteristics and the context in which they work, will be provided. While the COVID-19 pandemic may prove the first great stress test of the capabilities, capacity, and robustness of digital systems currently in use, remote care will likely remain an increasingly common approach in the future. There is an imperative to identify the main lessons from this unexpected transformation and use them to inform policy decisions and health service design. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/30099.

Challenges for the evaluation of digital health solutions-A call for innovative evidence generation approaches.

The field of digital health, and its meaning, has evolved rapidly over the last 20 years. For this article we followed the most recent definition provided by FDA in 2020. Emerging solutions offers tremendous potential to positively transform the healthcare sector. Despite the growing number of applications, however, the evolution of methodologies to perform timely, cost-effective and robust evaluations have not kept pace. It remains an industry-wide challenge to provide credible evidence, therefore, hindering wider adoption. Conventional methodologies, such as clinical trials, have seldom been applied and more pragmatic approaches are needed. In response, several academic centers such as researchers from the Institute of Global Health Innovation at Imperial College London have initiated a digital health clinical simulation test bed to explore new approaches for evidence gathering relevant to solution type and maturity. The aim of this article is to: (1) Review current research approaches and discuss their limitations; (2) Discuss challenges faced by different stakeholders in undertaking evaluations; and (3) Call for new approaches to facilitate the safe and responsible growth of the digital health sector.

The effects and preventability of 2627 patient safety incidents related to health information technology failures: a retrospective analysis of 10 years of incident reporting in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: The use of health information technology (IT) is rapidly increasing to support improvements in the delivery of care. Although health IT is delivering huge benefits, new technology can also introduce unique risks. Despite these risks, evidence on the preventability and effects of health IT failures on patients is scarce. In our study we therefore sought to evaluate the preventability and effects of health IT failures by examining patient safety incidents in England and Wales. METHODS: We designed our study as a retrospective analysis of 10 years of incident reporting in England and Wales. We used text mining with the words "computer", "system", "workstation", and "network" to explore free-text incident descriptors to identify incidents related to health IT failures following a previously described approach. We then applied an n-gram model of searching to identify contiguous sequences of words and provide spatial context. We examined incident details, recorded harm, and preventability. Standard descriptive statistics were applied. Degree of harm was identified according to standardised definitions and preventability was assessed by two independent reviewers. FINDINGS: We identified 2627 incidents related to health IT failures. 2557 (97%) of 2627 incidents were assessed for harm (70 incidents were excluded). 2106 (82%) of 2557 health IT failures caused no harm to patients, 331 (13%) caused low harm, 102 (4%) caused moderate harm, 14 (1%) caused severe harm, and four (<1%) contributed to the death of a patient. 1964 (75%) of 2627 incidents were deemed to be preventable. INTERPRETATION: Health IT is fundamental to the delivery of high-quality care, yet there is a poor understanding of the effects of IT failures on patient safety and whether they can be prevented. Failures are complex and involve interlinked aspects of technology, people, and the environment. Health IT failures are undoubtedly a potential source of substantial harm, but they are likely to be under-reported. Worryingly, three-quarters of IT failures are potentially preventable. There is a need to see health IT as a fundamental tenet of patient safety, develop better methods for capturing the effects of IT failures on patients, and adopt simple measures to reduce their probability and mitigate their risk. FUNDING: The National Institutes of Health Research Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre at Imperial College London.