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.

Understanding the response of mammography facilities to breast density notification.

BACKGROUND: State-specific breast density notification legislation requires that women undergoing mammography be informed about breast density, with variation among states. Because mammography facilities are among the main points of contact for women undergoing mammography, research is needed to understand how facilities communicate information on breast density, cancer risk, and supplemental screening to women. METHODS: A cross-sectional, 50-item, mailed survey of 156 American College of Radiology-certified mammography facilities in North Carolina was conducted in 2017 via the Tailored Design Method. Breast density notification practices, supplemental screening services, and patient educational materials were compared by supplemental screening availability via t tests and chi-square tests. RESULTS: All responding facilities (n = 94; 60.3% response rate) notified women of their breast density in the mammography results letter. Breast cancer risk assessments were performed by 36.2% of the facilities, with risk information communicated in the final radiology report for the referring provider to discuss with the woman (79.4%) or in the results letter (58.8%). Supplemental breast cancer screening was offered by 63.8% of the facilities, with use based on multiple factors, including recommendations from the referring physician (63.3%) or reading radiologist (63.3%), breast density (48.3%), other risk factors (48.3%), and patient request (40.0%). Although 75.0% of the facilities offered breast density educational materials, only 36.6% offered educational materials on supplemental screening. CONCLUSIONS: In a state with a breast density notification law, mammography facilities communicate breast density, cancer risk, and supplemental screening information to women through various approaches. When supplemental screening is offered, facilities use multiple decision-making criteria rather than breast density alone.

[Is psychiatry ready to let patients review their own files? Inventory of initial experiences]. / Is de psychiatrie klaar voor de meelezende patiënt? Inventarisatie van eerste ervaringen.

BACKGROUND: Dutch patients will be granted the right to digitally access their own medical records, an option already available to the patients at the University Medical Center Utrecht since 2015. AIM: To start a conversation about the development of readily accessible online patient records. METHODS Describe the experiences of a University department of psychiatry with an online patient portal, obtained through discussions and questionnaires. RESULTS: During the next few years three legal developments will enable patients to acquire direct, remote, digital access to their medical files. Immediate online review of medical records improves accessibility and empowers the patient. Some therapists experienced a change in patient interaction. Furthermore, during documentation psychiatrists took into account that patients could review the contents at a later point. CONCLUSION: Patients' accessibility of online records will influence the patient-therapist dynamic. More research on the patient perspective and a discussion among professionals are necessary to further streamline broad implementation of online patient portals.

Legal, Practical, and Ethical Considerations for Making Online Patient Portals Accessible for All.

Largely driven by the financial incentives of the HITECH Act's Meaningful Use program as part of federal US health care reform, access to portal Web sites has rapidly expanded, allowing many patients to view their medical record information online. Despite this expansion, there is little attention paid to the accessibility of portals for more vulnerable patient populations-especially patients with limited health literacy or limited English proficiency, and individuals with disabilities. We argue that there are potential legal mandates for improving portal accessibility (e.g., the Civil Rights and the Rehabilitation Acts), as well as ethical considerations to prevent the exacerbation of existing health and health care disparities. To address these legal, practical, and ethical considerations, we present standards and broad recommendations that could greatly improve the reach and impact of portal Web sites.

Radiologist Found Liable for Malpractice in Israel for Causing a Patient's Suicide by Sending a "Bad News" Report: Can This Happen in the United States?

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to present an example of a non-U.S. lawsuit in which a radiologist was found negligent in the case of a psychiatric patient who died by suicide after reading a radiology report sent directly to him. CONCLUSION: Although the lawsuit and its outcome do not influence laws in the United States or any country other than the one in which the case was tried, it should stimulate the radiologic community into giving serious thought to the format and manner in which reports of radiologic examinations are communicated to patients.

Managing data subject access requests.

The Data Protection Act 1998 requires district nurses to process personal patient data fairly and lawfully by keeping accurate, contemporaneous and secure records. Patients who have concerns about the accuracy of their record can seek access to the record under the 1998 Act. In this article, Richard Griffith considers the requirements for requesting and granting access to a patient to view and obtain a copy of their health record.

[Patient access to medical records. Ethical considerations on its realization in psychiatry]. / Akteneinsicht durch Patienten. Ethische Überlegungen zur Gestaltung in der Psychiatrie.

BACKGROUND: In medical ethics there is broad agreement that patients should be empowered to make autonomous decisions about their health and that objective, detailed information promotes these decisions. According to German law patients have a right of access to their own medical records. OBJECTIVES: Which advantages and disadvantages does the access to records have for doctors and patients in psychiatry? Which requirements should be met to make access reasonable for patients? MATERIAL AND METHODS: This article presents an analysis of the legal situation and the state of research, evaluation of empirical studies, discussion of features of psychiatry, its language and patients as well as their influence on access to medical records. RESULTS: Psychiatrists are sometimes concerned about patient access to medical records and some psychiatric patients feel upset or uncomfortable after having inspected their records. The misunderstanding and stigmatization of psychiatric terms, the vulnerability of psychiatric patients and the nature of psychiatric disorders, the description of which affects fundamental aspects of personality, all play a role in this. In addition, in having access to their records patients use a source of information that was originally written for other addressees. Information content and language are not adapted to their needs. Possible solutions could involve improvements in patient education and (stylistic) changes in writing records.

[Some current threats to confidentiality in medicine]. / Algunas amenazas actuales a la confidencialidad en medicina.

Social, technical and legal conditions of the current practice of medicine make it necessary to insist on certain actions and circumstances that may jeopardize the confidentiality of information, offered by patients to their health providers. Therefore, some effects of the current Chilean law are analyzed in this respect, regarding access to data from the clinical record of a patient. Also, the risks of putting certain data on social networking sites are analyzed, as well as some of its effects on clinical practice. The reasons because of mandatory reporting of diseases, meaning danger to public health, is allowed, are mentioned. We also discuss the difficulties involved in managing the results of preventative health screenings and its knowledge by third parties, as well as some possible violations of personal privacy, regarding dissemination of some people health information and its further mention or figuration in mass media. We conclude that it is a must for both physicians and other health team members, to safeguard confidentiality of data to which they have had access, as well as the need to know the relevant law, in order to respect human dignity of patients, each one as a person. We address the attention to the possibility that, practicing in a different way, it could endanger the reliability of clinical records, also impairing the quality of people's health care.

Regulatory changes raise troubling questions for genomic testing.

By 6 October 2014, many laboratories in the United States must begin honoring new individual data access rights created by recent changes to federal privacy and laboratory regulations. These access rights are more expansive than has been widely understood and pose complex challenges for genomic testing laboratories. This article analyzes regulatory texts and guidances to explore which laboratories are affected. It offers the first published analysis of which parts of the vast trove of data generated during next-generation sequencing will be accessible to patients and research subjects. Persons tested at affected laboratories seemingly will have access, upon request, to uninterpreted gene variant information contained in their stored variant call format, binary alignment/map, and FASTQ files. A defect in the regulations will subject some non-CLIA-regulated research laboratories to these new access requirements unless the Department of Health and Human Services takes swift action to avert this apparently unintended consequence. More broadly, all affected laboratories face a long list of daunting operational, business, compliance, and bioethical issues as they adapt to this change and to the Food and Drug Administration's recently announced plan to publish draft guidance outlining a new oversight framework for lab-developed tests.

Can I access my personal genome? The current legal position in the UK.

This paper discusses the nature of genomic information, and the moral arguments in support of an individual's right to access it. It analyses the legal avenues an individual might take to access their sequence information. The authors describe the policy implications in this area and conclude that, for now, the law appears to strike an appropriate balance, but new policy will need to be developed to address this issue.

Immediate Access to Radiology Reports: Perspectives on X Before and After the Cures Act Information Blocking Provision.

OBJECTIVE: The 21st Century Cures Act's information blocking provision mandates that patients have immediate access to their electronic health information, including radiology reports. We evaluated public opinions surrounding this policy on X, a microblogging platform with over 400 million users. METHODS: We retrieved 27,522 posts related to radiology reports from October 5, 2020, through October 4, 2021. One reviewer performed initial screening for relevant posts. Two reviewers categorized user type and post theme(s) using a predefined coding system. Posts were grouped as "pre-Cures" (6 months before information blocking) and "post-Cures" (6 months after). Descriptive statistics and χ2 tests were performed. RESULTS: Among 1,155 final posts, 1,028 unique users were identified (64% patients, 11% non-radiologist physicians, 4% radiologists). X activity increased, with 40% (n = 462) pre-Cures and 60% (n = 693) post-Cures. Early result notification before referring providers was the only theme that significantly increased post-Cures (+3%, P = .001). Common negative themes were frustration (33%), anxiety (27%), and delay (20%). Common positive themes were gratitude for radiologists (52%) and autonomy (21%). Of posts expressing opinions on early access, 84% favored and 16% opposed it, with decreased preference between study periods (P = .006). More patients than physicians preferred early access (92% versus 40%, P < .0001). DISCUSSION: X activity increased after the information blocking provision, partly due to conversation about early notification. Despite negative experiences with reports, most users preferred early access. Although the Cures Act is a positive step toward open access, work remains to improve patients' engagement with their radiology results.