Advancing Primary Care Access: Exploring the Impact of the Virtual Waiting Room on the Quadruple Aim.

BACKGROUND: Community health centers grapple with high no-show rates, posing challenges to patient access and primary care provider (PCP) utilization. AIM: To address these challenges, we implemented a virtual waiting room (VWR) program in April 2023 to enhance patient access and boost PCP utilization. SETTING: Academic community health center in a small urban city in Massachusetts. PARTICIPANTS: Community health patients (n = 8706) and PCP (n = 14). PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: The VWR program, initiated in April 2023, involved nurse triage of same-day visit requests for telehealth appropriateness, then placing patients in a standby pool to fill in as a telehealth visit for no-shows or last-minute cancellations in PCP schedules. PROGRAM EVALUATION: Post-implementation, clinic utilization rates between July and September improved from 75.2% in 2022 to 81.2% in 2023 (p < 0.01). PCP feedback was universally positive. Patients experienced a mean wait time of 1.9 h, offering a timely and convenient alternative to urgent care or the ER. DISCUSSION: The VWR is aligned with the quadruple aim of improving patient experience, population health, cost-effectiveness, and PCP satisfaction through improving same-day access and improving PCP schedule utilization. This innovative and reproducible approach in outpatient offices utilizing telehealth holds the potential for enhancing timely access across various medical disciplines.

Status and future developments for downstream processing of biological products: Perspectives from the Recovery XIX yield roundtable discussions.

Governments and biopharmaceutical organizations aggressively leveraged expeditious communication capabilities, decision models, and global strategies to make a COVID-19 vaccine happen within a period of 12 months. This was an unusual effort and cannot be transferred to normal times. However, this focus on a single vaccine has also led to other treatments and drug developments being sidelined. Society expects the pharmaceutical industry to provide an uninterrupted supply of medicines. However, it is often overlooked how complex the manufacture of these compounds is and what logistics are required, not to mention the time needed to develop new drugs. The overarching theme, therefore, is patient access and how we can help ensure access and extend it to low- and middle-income countries. Despite unceasing efforts to make medications available to all patient populations, this must never be done at the expense of patient safety. A major fraction of the costs in biopharmaceutical manufacturing are for drug discovery, process development, and clinical studies. Infrastructure costs are very difficult to quantify because they often depend on whether a greenfield facility or an existing, depreciated facility is used or adapted for a new product. To accelerate process development concepts of platform process and prior knowledge are increasingly leveraged. While more traditional protein therapeutics continue to dominate the field, we are also experiencing the exciting emergence and evolution of other therapeutic formats (bispecifics, tetravalent mAbs, antibody-drug conjugates, enzymes, peptides, etc.) that offer unique treatment options for patients. Protein modalities are still dominant, but new modalities are being developed that can be learned from including advanced therapeutics-like cell and gene therapies. The industry must develop a model-based strategy for process development and technologies such as continuous integrated biomanufacturing must be adopted. The overall conclusion is that the pandemic pace was unsustainable, focused on vaccine delivery at the expense of other modalities/disease targets, and had implications for professional and personal life (work-life balance). Routinely reducing development time from 10 years to 1 year is nearly impossible to achieve. Environmental aspects of sustainable downstream processing are also described.

Patient Access of Their Radiology Reports Before and After Implementation of 21st Century Cures Act Information-Blocking Provisions at a Large Multicampus Health System.

BACKGROUND. To implement provisions of the 21st Century Cures Act that address information blocking, federal regulations mandated that health systems provide patients with immediate access to elements of their electronic health information, including imaging results. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare patient access of radiology reports before and after implementation of the information-blocking provisions of the 21st Century Cures Act. METHODS. This retrospective study included patients who underwent outpatient imaging examinations from January 1, 2021, through December 31, 2022, at three campuses within a large health system. The system implemented policies to comply with the Cures Act information-blocking provisions on January 1, 2022. Imaging results were released in patient portals after a 36-hour embargo period before implementation versus being released immediately after report finalization after implementation. Data regarding patient report access in the portal and report acknowledgment by the ordering provider in the EMR were extracted and compared between periods. RESULTS. The study included reports for 1,188,692 examinations in 388,921 patients (mean age, 58.5 ± 16.6 [SD] years; 209,589 women, 179,290 men, eight nonbinary individuals, and 34 individuals for whom sex information was missing). A total of 77.5% of reports were accessed by the patient before implementation versus 80.4% after implementation. The median time from report finalization to report release in the patient portal was 36.0 hours before implementation versus 0.4 hours after implementation. The median time from report release to first patient access of the report in the portal was 8.7 hours before implementation versus 3.0 hours after implementation. The median time from report finalization to first patient access was 45.0 hours before implementation versus 5.5 hours after implementation. Before implementation, a total of 18.5% of reports were first accessed by the patient before being accessed by the ordering provider versus 44.0% after implementation. After implementation, the median time from report release to first patient access was 1.8 hours for patients with age younger than 60 years old versus 4.3 hours for patients 60 years old or older. CONCLUSION. After implementation of institutional policies to comply with 21st Century Cures Act information-blocking provisions, the length of time until patients accessed imaging results decreased, and the proportion of patients who accessed their reports before the ordering provider increased. CLINICAL IMPACT. Radiologists should consider mechanisms to ensure timely and appropriate communication of important findings to ordering providers.

Examining rehabilitation access disparities: an integrated analysis of electronic health record data and population characteristics through bivariate choropleth mapping.

BACKGROUND: Despite efforts to view electronic health records (EHR) data through an equity lens, crucial contextual information regarding patients' social environments remains limited. Integrating EHR data and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology can give deeper insights into the relationships between patients' social environments, health outcomes, and geographic factors. This study aims to identify regions with the fastest and slowest access to outpatient physical therapy services using bivariate choropleth maps to provide contextual insights that may contribute to health disparity in access. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients' access timelines for the first visit to outpatient physical therapy services (n = 10,363). The three timelines evaluated were (1) referral-to-scheduled appointment time, (2) scheduled appointment to first visit time, and (3) referral to first visit time. Hot and coldspot analyses (CI 95%) determined the fastest and slowest access times with patient-level characteristics and bivariate choropleth maps that were developed to visualize associations between access patterns and disadvantaged areas using Area Deprivation Index scores. Data were collected between January 1, 2016 and January 1, 2020. EHR data were geocoded via GIS technology to calculate geospatial statistics (Gi∗ statistic from ArcGIS Pro) in an urban area. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found for all three access timelines between coldspot (i.e., fast access group) and hotspot (i.e., slow access group) comparisons (p < .05). The hotspot regions had higher deprivation scores; higher proportions of residents who were older, privately insured, female, lived further from clinics; and a higher proportion of Black patients with orthopaedic diagnoses compared to the coldspot regions. CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified and described local areas with higher densities of patients that experienced longer access times to outpatient physical therapy services. Integration of EHR and GIS data is a more robust method to identify health disparities in access to care. With this approach, we can better understand the intricate interplay between social, economic, and environmental factors contributing to health disparities in access to care.

Lifting the curtain on the emergency department crisis: a multi-method reception study of Larry Saves the Canadian Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: Despite growing evidence of the potential of arts-based modalities to translate knowledge and spark discussion on complex issues, applications to health policy are rare. This study explored the potential of a research-based theatrical video to increase public capacity and motivation to engage with the complex issues that make Emergency Department wait times such an intractable problem. METHODS: Larry Saves the Canadian Healthcare System is a digital musical micro-series developed from extensive research examining system-level causes of Emergency crowding and the ineffectiveness of prevailing approaches. We released individual episodes and a revised full-length version on YouTube, using organic promotion strategies and paid advertising. We used YouTube Analytics to track views, engagement and viewer demographics, and content-analyzed viewer comments. We also conducted five university-based screenings; 92 students completed questionnaires, rating Larry on 16 descriptors using a 7-point Likert scale. RESULTS: From June 2022 through May 2023, Larry garnered over 100,000 views (76,752 of the full-length version, 35,535 of episodes), 1329 likes, 2780 shares, and 139 comments. Views and watch time were higher among women and positively associated with age. Among YouTube comments, the predominating themes were praise for the video and criticism of the healthcare system. Many commenters applauded the show's accuracy, humor, and/or resonance with their experience; several shared healthcare horror stories. Students overwhelmingly agreed with all positive and disagreed with all negative descriptors, and nearly unanimously deemed the video informative, thought-provoking, and entertaining. Most also affirmed that it had increased their knowledge, interest, and confidence to participate in discussions about healthcare issues. Neither gender, primary language, nor employment in healthcare predicted ratings, but graduate students and those 25+ years old evaluated the video most positively. DISCUSSION: These findings highlight the promise of research-informed musical satire to inform and invigorate discourse on an urgent health policy problem. Larry has reached tens of thousands of viewers, garnered excellent feedback, and received high student ratings. Further research should directly assess educational and behavioural outcomes and explore what facilitative strategies could maximize this knowledge translation product's potential to foster informed, impactful policy dialogue.

A Nordic Perspective on Patient Online Record Access and the European Health Data Space.

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.

An Electronic Health Record-Based Automated Self-Rescheduling Tool to Improve Patient Access: Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: In many large health centers, patients face long appointment wait times and difficulties accessing care. Last-minute cancellations and patient no-shows leave unfilled slots in a clinician's schedule, exacerbating delays in care from poor access. The mismatch between the supply of outpatient appointments and patient demand has led health systems to adopt many tools and strategies to minimize appointment no-show rates and fill open slots left by patient cancellations. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated an electronic health record (EHR)-based self-scheduling tool, Fast Pass, at a large academic medical center to understand the impacts of the tool on the ability to fill cancelled appointment slots, patient access to earlier appointments, and clinical revenue from visits that may otherwise have gone unscheduled. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we extracted Fast Pass appointment offers and scheduling data, including patient demographics, from the EHR between June 18, 2022, and March 9, 2023. We analyzed the outcomes of Fast Pass offers (accepted, declined, expired, and unavailable) and the outcomes of scheduled appointments resulting from accepted Fast Pass offers (completed, canceled, and no-show). We stratified outcomes based on appointment specialty. For each specialty, the patient service revenue from appointments filled by Fast Pass was calculated using the visit slots filled, the payer mix of the appointments, and the contribution margin by payer. RESULTS: From June 18 to March 9, 2023, there were a total of 60,660 Fast Pass offers sent to patients for 21,978 available appointments. Of these offers, 6603 (11%) were accepted across all departments, and 5399 (8.9%) visits were completed. Patients were seen a median (IQR) of 14 (4-33) days sooner for their appointments. In a multivariate logistic regression model with primary outcome Fast Pass offer acceptance, patients who were aged 65 years or older (vs 20-40 years; P=.005 odds ratio [OR] 0.86, 95% CI 0.78-0.96), other ethnicity (vs White; P<.001, OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77-0.91), primarily Chinese speakers (P<.001; OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49-0.79), and other language speakers (vs English speakers; P=.001; OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57-0.87) were less likely to accept an offer. Fast Pass added 2576 patient service hours to the clinical schedule, with a median (IQR) of 251 (216-322) hours per month. The estimated value of physician fees from these visits scheduled through 9 months of Fast Pass scheduling in professional fees at our institution was US $3 million. CONCLUSIONS: Self-scheduling tools that provide patients with an opportunity to schedule into cancelled or unfilled appointment slots have the potential to improve patient access and efficiently capture additional revenue from filling unfilled slots. The demographics of the patients accepting these offers suggest that such digital tools may exacerbate inequities in access.

Enhancing Patient Understanding of Laboratory Test Results: Systematic Review of Presentation Formats and Their Impact on Perception, Decision, Action, and Memory.

BACKGROUND: Direct access of patients to their web-based patient portal, including laboratory test results, has become increasingly common. Numeric laboratory results can be challenging to interpret for patients, which may lead to anxiety, confusion, and unnecessary doctor consultations. Laboratory results can be presented in different formats, but there is limited evidence regarding how these presentation formats impact patients' processing of the information. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to synthesize the evidence on effective formats for presenting numeric laboratory test results with a focus on outcomes related to patients' information processing, including affective perception, perceived magnitude, cognitive perception, perception of communication, decision, action, and memory. METHODS: The search was conducted in 3 databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase) from inception until May 31, 2023. We included quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods articles describing or comparing formats for presenting diagnostic laboratory test results to patients. Two reviewers independently extracted and synthesized the characteristics of the articles and presentation formats used. The quality of the included articles was assessed by 2 independent reviewers using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies were included, which were heterogeneous in terms of study design and primary outcomes used. The quality of the articles ranged from poor to excellent. Most studies (n=16, 89%) used mock test results. The most frequently used presentation formats were numerical values with reference ranges (n=12), horizontal line bars with colored blocks (n=12), or a combination of horizontal line bars with numerical values (n=8). All studies examined perception as an outcome, while action and memory were studied in 1 and 3 articles, respectively. In general, participants' satisfaction and usability were the highest when test results were presented using horizontal line bars with colored blocks. Adding reference ranges or personalized information (eg, goal ranges) further increased participants' perception. Additionally, horizontal line bars significantly decreased participants' tendency to search for information or to contact their physician, compared with numerical values with reference ranges. CONCLUSIONS: In this review, we synthesized available evidence on effective presentation formats for laboratory test results. The use of horizontal line bars with reference ranges or personalized goal ranges increased participants' cognitive perception and perception of communication while decreasing participants' tendency to contact their physicians. Action and memory were less frequently studied, so no conclusion could be drawn about a single preferred format regarding these outcomes. Therefore, the use of horizontal line bars with reference ranges or personalized goal ranges is recommended to enhance patients' information processing of laboratory test results. Further research should focus on real-life settings and diverse presentation formats in combination with outcomes related to patients' information processing.

Sociotechnical Cross-Country Analysis of Contextual Factors That Impact Patients' Access to Electronic Health Records in 4 European Countries: Framework Evaluation Study.

BACKGROUND: The NORDeHEALTH project studies patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) in Estonia, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Such country comparisons require an analysis of the sociotechnical context of these services. Although sociotechnical analyses of PAEHR services have been carried out in the past, a framework specifically tailored to in-depth cross-country analysis has not been developed. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop and evaluate a method for a sociotechnical analysis of PAEHRs that advances a framework for sociotechnical analysis of eHealth solutions first presented by Sittig and Singh. This first article in a series presents the development of the method and a cross-country comparison of the contextual factors that enable PAEHR access and use. METHODS: The dimensions of the framework for sociotechnical analysis were thoroughly discussed and extended in a series of workshops with international stakeholders, all being eHealth researchers focusing on PAEHRs. All countries were represented in the working group to make sure that important national perspectives were covered. A spreadsheet with relevant questions related to the studied services and the various dimensions of the sociotechnical framework was constructed and distributed to the 4 participating countries, and the project participants researched various national sources to provide the relevant data for the comparisons in the 10 sociotechnical dimensions. RESULTS: In total, 3 dimensions were added to the methodology of Sittig and Singh to separate clinical content from features and functions of PAEHRs and demonstrate basic characteristics of the different countries regarding national and regional steering of health care and information and communications technology developments. The final framework contained the following dimensions: metadata; hardware and software computing infrastructure; features and functions; clinical content shared with patients; human-computer interface; people; workflow and communication; the health care organization's internal policies, procedures, and culture; national rules, regulations, and incentives; system measurement and monitoring; and health care system context. The dimensions added during the study mostly concerned background information needed for cross-country comparisons in particular. Several similarities were identified among the compared countries, especially regarding hardware and software computing infrastructure. All countries had, for example, one national access point, and patients are provided a PAEHR automatically. Most of the differences could be identified in the health care system context dimension. One important difference concerned the governing of information and communications technology development, where different levels (state, region, and municipality) were responsible in different countries. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first large-scale international sociotechnical analysis of services for patients to access their electronic health records; this study compared services in Estonia, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. A methodology for such an analysis was developed and is presented to enable comparison studies in other national contexts to enable future implementations and evaluations of PAEHRs.

Trends in Costs and Professional Reimbursements for Revision Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: With increasing numbers of revision total hip and total knee arthroplasties (rTHAs and rTKAs), understanding trends in related out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, overall costs, and provider reimbursements is critical to improve patient access to care. METHODS: A large database was used to identify 92,116 patients who underwent rTHA or rTKA between 2009 and 2018. The OOP costs associated with the surgery and related inpatient care were calculated as the sum of copayment, coinsurance, and deductible payments. Professional reimbursement was calculated as total payments to the principal physician. All monetary data were adjusted to 2018 dollars. Multivariate regressions evaluated the associations between costs and procedure type, insurance type, and region of service. RESULTS: From 2009 to 2018, overall costs for rTHA significantly increased by 35.0% and overall costs for rTKA significantly increased by 32.3%. The OOP costs for rTHA had no significant changes, while OOP costs for rTKA increased by 20.1%, with patients on Medicare plans having the lowest OOP costs. Professional reimbursements, when measured as a percentage of overall costs, decreased significantly by 4.4% for rTHA and 4.0% for rTKA, with the lowest reimbursements from Medicare plans. CONCLUSION: From 2009 to 2018, total costs related to rTHA and rTKA significantly increased. The OOP costs significantly increased for rTKA, and professional reimbursements for both rTHA and rTKA decreased relative to total costs. Overall, these trends may combine to create greater financial burden to patients and the healthcare system, as well as further limit patients' access to revision arthroplasty care.

Dermatology workforce in the United States - Part II: Patient outcomes, challenges, and potential solutions.

This continuing medical education (CME) series assesses key features and ongoing transformations within the dermatology workforce. Part 1 of this series described precipitants and implications of recent workforce changes. Part 2 reviews the influence that these workforce dynamics have had on patient access, outcomes, and satisfaction. Additionally, it assesses potential solutions for optimizing care for underserved groups and the broader dermatologic patient population.

Applying value-based strategies to accelerate access to novel cancer medications: guidance from the Oncology Health Economics Expert Panel in Qatar (Q-OHEP).

BACKGROUND: In line with global trends, cancer incidence and mortality may have decreased for specific types of cancer in Qatar. However, the cancer-related burden on patients, healthcare systems, and the economy is expected to expand; thus, cancer remains a significant public healthcare issue in Qatar. Qatar's free access to cancer care represents a considerable economic burden. Ensuring the best utilization of financial resources in the healthcare sector is important to provide unified and fair access to cancer care for all patients. Experts from the Qatar Oncology Health Economics Expert Panel (Q-OHEP) aimed to establish a consistent and robust base for evaluating oncology/hematology medications; involve patients' insights to accelerate access to cutting-edge medications; increase the value of cancer care; and reach a consensus for using cost-effective strategies and efficient methodologies in cancer treatment. METHODS: The Q-OHEP convened on 30 November 2021 for a 3-hour meeting to discuss cancer management, therapeutics, and health economics in Qatar, focusing on four domains: (1) regulatory, (2) procurement, (3) treatment, and (4) patients. Discussions, guided by a moderator, focused on a list of suggested open-ended questions. RESULTS: Some of the salient recommendations included the development of a formal, fast-track, preliminary approval pathway for drugs needed by patients with severe disease or in critical condition; and encouraging and promoting the conduct of local clinical trials and real-world observational studies using existing registry data. The Q-OHEP also recommended implementing a forecast system using treatment center data based on the supply/demand of formulary oncology drugs to detect treatment patterns, estimate needs, expedite procurement, and prevent shortages/delays. Furthermore, the panel discussed the needs to define value concerning cancer treatment in Qatar, implement value-based models for reimbursement decision-making such as health technology assessment and multiple-criteria decision analysis, and promote patient education and involvement/feedback in developing and implementing cancer management guidelines. CONCLUSION: Herein, we summarize the first Q-OHEP consensus recommendations, which aim to provide a solid basis for evaluating, registering, and approving new cancer medications to accelerate patient access to novel cancer treatments in Qatar; promote/facilitate the adoption and collection of patient-reported outcomes; and implement value-based cancer care in Qatar.

The NORDeHEALTH 2022 Patient Survey: Cross-Sectional Study of National Patient Portal Users in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Estonia.

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.

General Practices' Experiences With Patients' Web-Based Access to Medical Records: Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients' web-based access to their medical records is expected to promote their role and responsibility in managing their own health and treatments and supporting shared decision-making. As of July 2020, general practices in the Netherlands are legally obliged to provide their patients access to their electronic medical records. Web-based access provision is facilitated and stimulated through a national support program named OPEN. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate general practice staff experiences with providing web-based access; investigate its impact on patient consultations, administrative actions, and patient inquiries; and investigate how it affects routine general practice workflow processes. METHODS: In October 2021, a total of 3813 general practices in the Netherlands were invited to complete a web-based survey that included questions regarding their experiences with the provision of web-based access to medical records and how it affects routine general practice workflow. Responses of general practices that started providing web-based access before 2020, in 2020, or in 2021 were analyzed to identify trends. RESULTS: Of 3813 invited general practices, 523 (13.72%) completed the survey. Approximately all responding general practices (487/523, 93.1%) indicated that they provide web-based access. Experiences with patients' web-based access were diverse, with 36.9% (178/482) primarily positive, 8.1% (39/482) primarily negative, 42.3% (204/482) neutral, and 12.7% (61/482) could not (yet) indicate how they experienced web-based access. Of the total, two-thirds (311/473, 65.8%) reported an increase in e-consultations and a similar percentage (302/474, 63.7%) indicated an increase in administrative actions associated with web-based access provision. A small proportion of the practices (≤10%) experienced a decrease in patient contacts. Earlier adoption of web-based access was associated with a more positive attitude toward web-based access and more positive experienced effects related to patient contacts and general practice workflow. CONCLUSIONS: The surveyed general practices mainly experienced providing web-based access as either neutral or mostly positive, despite an increased number of patient contacts and administrative burden that were associated with its adoption. Periodic monitoring of experiences is needed to understand the temporal or structural nature of both the intended and unintended effects of patients' web-based access to medical records for general practices and their staff.

The Effects of Online Access to General Practice Medical Records Perceived by Patients: Longitudinal Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient online access to medical records is assumed to facilitate patient empowerment and advance patient-centered health care. However, to date, the actual effects of online access to medical records perceived by patients and other outcomes are insufficiently empirically tested. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the effects of online access to medical records on patient empowerment, informed decision-making, and the patient-provider relationship perceived by patients. METHODS: A nationwide, 2-wave, longitudinal survey study was conducted among Dutch adults (N=2402). Linear regression analyses were performed. In model 1, the perceived effects of online access to medical records (measured at T1 [first measurement; July 2021]) on 16 outcomes (measured at T2 [second measurement; January 2022]), which were associated with the use of online access to general practice medical records in previous research, were investigated. Model 2 included sociodemographic factors and patient characteristics as confounders. RESULTS: Users indicated more strongly than nonusers that online access to medical records would increase their participation in health care, improve the relationship with their general practitioner, and support informed decision-making. These results were robust when adjusted for the influence of confounders. Effect sizes were very small, with unstandardized regression coefficients (B) ranging between -0.39 and 0.28. Higher digital and health literacy were associated with higher ratings of almost all effects. CONCLUSIONS: Online access to medical records has the potential to empower patients and foster informed decision-making among patients. The effects in this study were small but might grow over time. Other factors, such as the attitude of general practitioners toward online access to medical records, might moderate these effects. The results indicate that the potential benefits of online access to medical records might be unevenly distributed. We suggest future exploration of the conditions under which online access to medical records can improve health care system functioning and efficiency without increasing health inequality.

Patient and Health Care Provider Perspectives on Patient Access to Test Results via Web Portals: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: A frequently used feature of electronic patient portals is the viewing of test results. Research on patient portals is abundant and offers evidence to help portal implementers make policy and practice decisions. In contrast, no comparable comprehensive summary of research addresses the direct release of and patient access to test results. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to analyze and synthesize published research focused on patient and health care provider perspectives on the direct release of laboratory, imaging, and radiology results to patients via web portals. METHODS: PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. Searches were conducted in CINAHL, MEDLINE, and other databases. Citations were screened in Covidence using the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Primary studies that focused on patient and health care provider perspectives on patient access to laboratory and imaging results via web portals were included. An updated search was conducted up to August 2023. Our review included 27 articles-20 examining patient views, 3 examining provider views, and 4 examining both patient and provider views. Data extraction and inductive data analysis were informed by sensitizing concepts from sociomaterial perspectives, and 15 themes were generated. RESULTS: Patient perspectives (24 papers) were synthesized using nine themes: (1) patterns of use and patient characteristics; (2) emotional response when viewing the results and uncertainty about their implications; (3) understanding test results; (4) preferences for mode and timing of result release; (5). information seeking and patients' actions motivated by viewing results via a portal; (6) contemplating changes in behavior and managing own health; (7) benefits of accessing test results via a portal; (8) limitations of accessing test results via a portal; and (9) suggestions for portal improvement. Health care provider perspectives (7 papers) were synthetized into six themes: (1) providers' view of benefits of patient access to results via the portal; (2) effects on health care provider workload; (3) concerns about patient anxiety; (4) timing of result release into the patient portal; (5) the method of result release into the patient portal: manual versus automatic release; and (6) the effects of hospital health information technology system on patient quality outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The timing of the release of test results emerged as a particularly important topic. In some countries, the policy context may motivate immediate release of most tests directly into patient portals. However, our findings aim to make policy makers, health administrators, and other stakeholders aware of factors to consider when making decisions about the timing of result release. This review is sensitive to the characteristics of patient populations and portal technology and can inform result release framework policies. The findings are timely, as patient portals have become more common internationally.

Users' Experiences With Online Access to Electronic Health Records in Mental and Somatic Health Care: Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) hold promise for empowering patients, but their impact may vary between mental and somatic health care. Medical professionals and ethicists have expressed concerns about the potential challenges of PAEHRs for patients, especially those receiving mental health care. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate variations in the experiences of online access to electronic health records (EHRs) among persons receiving mental and somatic health care, as well as to understand how these experiences and perceptions vary among those receiving mental health care at different levels of point of care. METHODS: Using Norwegian data from the NORDeHEALTH 2022 Patient Survey, we conducted a cross-sectional descriptive analysis of service use and perceptions of perceived mistakes, omissions, and offensive comments by mental and somatic health care respondents. Content analysis was used to analyze free-text responses to understand how respondents experienced the most serious errors in their EHR. RESULTS: Among 9505 survey participants, we identified 2008 mental health care respondents and 7086 somatic health care respondents. A higher percentage of mental health care respondents (1385/2008, 68.97%) reported that using PAEHR increased their trust in health care professionals compared with somatic health care respondents (4251/7086, 59.99%). However, a significantly larger proportion (P<.001) of mental health care respondents (976/2008, 48.61%) reported perceiving errors in their EHR compared with somatic health care respondents (1893/7086, 26.71%). Mental health care respondents also reported significantly higher odds (P<.001) of identifying omissions (758/2008, 37.75%) and offensive comments (729/2008, 36.3%) in their EHR compared with the somatic health care group (1867/7086, 26.35% and 826/7086, 11.66%, respectively). Mental health care respondents in hospital inpatient settings were more likely to identify errors (398/588, 67.7%; P<.001) and omissions (251/588, 42.7%; P<.001) than those in outpatient care (errors: 422/837, 50.4% and omissions: 336/837, 40.1%; P<.001) and primary care (errors: 32/100, 32% and omissions: 29/100, 29%; P<.001). Hospital inpatients also reported feeling more offended (344/588, 58.5%; P<.001) by certain content in their EHR compared with respondents in primary (21/100, 21%) and outpatient care (287/837, 34.3%) settings. Our qualitative findings showed that both mental and somatic health care respondents identified the most serious errors in their EHR in terms of medical history, communication, diagnosis, and medication. CONCLUSIONS: Most mental and somatic health care respondents showed a positive attitude toward PAEHRs. However, mental health care respondents, especially those with severe and chronic concerns, expressed a more critical attitude toward certain content in their EHR compared with somatic health care respondents. A PAEHR can provide valuable information and foster trust, but it requires careful attention to the use of clinical terminology to ensure accurate, nonjudgmental documentation, especially for persons belonging to health care groups with unique sensitivities.

Changes in Management at the Postoperative Visit After In-Office Wide Awake Local Anesthetic No Tourniquet Carpal Tunnel Release.

PURPOSE: Patients are commonly seen for two postoperative visits following carpal tunnel release (CTR), the first visit being at 1-2 weeks and the second at approximately 6 weeks. Our study aimed to determine if these visits led to changes in postoperative medical management. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of 748 procedures performed in an in-office procedure room under wide awake local anesthetic no tourniquet between August 2020 and December 2022. Charts were reviewed for changes in management related to the patient's CTR. Management changes involving a separate diagnosis or solely an additional follow-up visit were classified as unrelated to postoperative CTR care. RESULTS: A total of 730 patients returned for follow-up. There were 100 patients (13.7 %) who had a CTR-related change in management at the first postoperative visit. Most management changes at this timepoint were due to superficial surgical site infection. There were 29 patients (4.0 %) who had a CTR-related change in management at their second postoperative visit, most commonly a referral to therapy for stiffness or hypersensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: While postoperative visits for CTR may have intangible benefits, changes in CTR-related care occur only in 17.7% of patients. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.

Diagnosis clarification by generalization to patient-friendly terms and definitions: Validation study.

BACKGROUND: Now that patients increasingly get access to their healthcare records, its contents require clarification. The use of patient-friendly terms and definitions can help patients and their significant others understand their medical data. However, it is costly to make patient-friendly descriptions for the myriad of terms used in the medical domain. Furthermore, a description in more general terms, leaving out some of the details, might already be sufficient for a layperson. We developed an algorithm that employs the SNOMED CT hierarchy to generalize diagnoses to a limited set of concepts with patient-friendly terms for this purpose. However, generalization essentially implies loss of detail and might result in errors, hence these generalizations remain to be validated by clinicians. We aim to assess the medical validity of diagnosis clarification by generalization to concepts with patient-friendly terms and definitions in SNOMED CT. Furthermore, we aim to identify the characteristics that render clarifications invalid. RESULTS: Two raters identified errors in 12.7% (95% confidence interval - CI: 10.7-14.6%) of a random sample of 1,131 clarifications and they considered 14.3% (CI: 12.3-16.4%) of clarifications to be unacceptable to show to a patient. The intraclass correlation coefficient of the interrater reliability was 0.34 for correctness and 0.43 for acceptability. Errors were mostly related to the patient-friendly terms and definitions used in the clarifications themselves, but also to terminology mappings, terminology modelling, and the clarification algorithm. Clarifications considered to be most unacceptable were those that provide wrong information and might cause unnecessary worry. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified problems in generalizing diagnoses to concepts with patient-friendly terms. Diagnosis generalization can be used to create a large amount of correct and acceptable clarifications, reusing patient-friendly terms and definitions across many medical concepts. However, the correctness and acceptability have a strong dependency on terminology mappings and modelling quality, as well as the quality of the terms and definitions themselves. Therefore, validation and quality improvement are required to prevent incorrect and unacceptable clarifications, before using the generalizations in practice.

Early Changes in Patient Access Interval during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: COVID-19 was first reported in the United States in January 2020. Its spread throughout the country required EMS systems to rapidly adapt to patient needs while protecting EMS personnel. EMS agencies developed protocols requiring personnel to don enhanced personal protective equipment prior to patient contact. We hypothesized that the Patient Access Interval (PAI), defined as the time from wheels stopped on scene to initial patient contact, had increased during the COVID pandemic. This had the potential to affect patient outcomes, particularly in time-sensitive emergencies such as cardiac arrest or respiratory distress. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used commercial ambulance data from the four largest cities in Connecticut at two different time points: (Pre-COVID) March-May 2019, and (COVID) March-May 2020. PAI was calculated from contemporaneously reported scene times. Total cases were analyzed, and sub-analyses performed for calls located at extended care facilities (ECFs), for all emergent (Echo/Delta) calls, and for medical cardiac arrest calls. Results: 92,846 total cases were evaluated: 50,083 from 2019, and 42,763 from 2020. Cases that did not include necessary time data for PAI were removed, yielding 75,796 total cases (41,852 from 2019, 33,944 from 2020). The average PAI increased from 1 minute 55 seconds (1 m:55s) Pre-COVID to 2 m:18s COVID. ECF PAI increased from 2 m:39s to 3 m:42s. Echo/Delta PAI increased from 1 m:42s to 2 m:07s. Medical cardiac arrest PAI increased from 1 m:27s to 2 m:04s, and ECF cardiac arrest PAI increased from 2 m:18s to 4 m:35s (all comparisons p < 0.01). Conclusions: There were statistically significant increases in all studied PAIs during COVID. The 23 second increase in PAI for all calls may not have been clinically significant in most cases; however, for life-threatening patient presentations, the increase may have been particularly relevant. The increased PAI was compounded in the ECF environment, possibly due to state-mandated screening and temperature checks of EMS personnel before entering facilities. This was highlighted in the ECF cardiac arrest data, which demonstrated a clinically significant increase in PAI of 2m:17s. While this study was limited by the accuracy of contemporaneous time reports by EMS, the results support our hypothesis that PAI had increased during the COVID pandemic.