Security and Privacy of Online Record Access: A Survey of Adolescents' Views and Experiences in Sweden.

PURPOSE: Ensuring security of online health records and patients' perceptions of security are concerns in adolescent healthcare. Little is known about adolescents' perceptions about healthcare's ability to protect online health records. This article explores adolescents' perspectives on security and privacy of their online health records, potential differences based on gender and health, attitudes to sharing information, and perceptions of what constitutes sensitive information. METHODS: This study included a subset of items from a national online patient survey conducted in Sweden (January-February 2022), focusing on respondents aged 15-19 years. Gender and health status differences were calculated using the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: Of 218 adolescent respondents (77.1% female), a minority had security and privacy concerns. A notable proportion (41.3%) wished to control who could see their records, and those who reported better perceived health were more likely to want to manage access to their electronic health record (H = 13.569, p = .009). Most had not experienced unauthorized access to their records (75.2%) and had never shared health information on other online applications (85.8%). More than half (56.0%) perceived some information as sensitive, where mental health was the most common (76.0%). Most felt that reading their notes improved their trust for their healthcare professional (65.6%) and supported better communication with healthcare professionals (66.5%). DISCUSSION: In this national survey, adolescents generally reported few concerns about patient portals. Findings emphasize the need for security and privacy protection and to empower adolescents with greater control over access to their health information housed in electronic health record systems.

Benchmarking usability of patient portals in Estonia, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.

INTRODUCTION: Poor usability is a barrier to widespread adoption of electronic health records (EHR). Providing good usability is especially challenging in the health care context, as there is a wide variety of patient users. Usability benchmarking is an approach for improving usability by evaluating and comparing the strength and weaknesses of systems. The main purpose of this study is to benchmark usability of patient portals across countries. METHODS: A mixed-methods survey approach was applied to benchmark the national patient portals offering patient access to EHR in Estonia, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. These Nordic countries have similar public healthcare systems, and they are pioneers in offering patients access to EHR for several years. In a survey of 29,334 patients, both patients' quantitative ratings of usability and their qualitative descriptions of very positive and very negative peak experiences of portal use were collected. RESULTS: The usability scores ranged from good to fair level of usability. The narratives of very positive and very negative experiences included the benefits of the patient portals and experienced usability issues. The regression analysis of results showed that very positive and negative experiences of patient portal use explain 19-35% of the variation of usability scores in the four countries. The percentage of patients who reported very positive or very negative experiences in each country was unrelated to the usability scores across countries. CONCLUSIONS: The survey approach could be used to evaluate usability with a wide variety of users and it supported learning from comparison across the countries. The combination of quantitative and qualitative data provided an approximation of the level of the perceived usability, and identified usability issues to be improved and useful features that patients appreciate. Further work is needed to improve the comparability of the varied samples across countries.

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.

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.

Errors, Omissions, and Offenses in the Health Record of Mental Health Care Patients: Results from a Nationwide Survey in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Previous research reports that patients with mental health conditions experience benefits, for example, increased empowerment and validation, from reading their patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs). In mental health care (MHC), PAEHRs remain controversial, as health care professionals are concerned that patients may feel worried or offended by the content of the notes. Moreover, existing research has focused on specific mental health diagnoses, excluding the larger PAEHR userbase with experience in MHC. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to establish if and how the experiences of patients with and those without MHC differ in using their PAEHRs by (1) comparing patient characteristics and differences in using the national patient portal between the 2 groups and (2) establishing group differences in the prevalence of negative experiences, for example, rates of errors, omissions, and offenses between the 2 groups. METHODS: Our analysis was performed on data from an online patient survey distributed through the Swedish national patient portal as part of our international research project, NORDeHEALTH. The respondents were patient users of the national patient portal 1177, aged 15 years or older, and categorized either as those with MHC experience or with any other health care experience (nonmental health care [non-MHC]). Patient characteristics such as gender, age, education, employment, and health status were gathered. Portal use characteristics included frequency of access, encouragement to read the record, and instances of positive and negative experiences. Negative experiences were further explored through rates of error, omission, and offense. The data were summarized through descriptive statistics. Group differences were analyzed through Pearson chi-square. RESULTS: Of the total sample (N=12,334), MHC respondents (n=3131) experienced errors (1586/3131, 50.65%, and non-MHC 3311/9203, 35.98%), omissions (1089/3131, 34.78%, and non-MHC 2427/9203, 26.37%) and offenses (1183/3131, 37.78%, and non-MHC 1616/9203, 17.56%) in the electronic health record at a higher rate than non-MHC respondents (n=9203). Respondents reported that the identified error (MHC 795/3131, 50.13%, and non-MHC 1366/9203, 41.26%) and omission (MHC 622/3131, 57.12%, and non-MHC 1329/9203, 54.76%) were "very important," but most did nothing to correct them (MHC 792/3131, 41.29%, and non-MHC 1838/9203, 42.17%). Most of the respondents identified as women in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: About 1 in 2 MHC patients identified an error in the record, and about 1 in 3 identified an omission, both at a much higher rate than in the non-MHC group. Patients with MHC also felt offended by the content of the notes more commonly (1 in 3 vs 1 in 6). These findings validate some of the worries expressed by health care professionals about providing patients with MHC with PAEHRs and highlight challenges with the documentation quality in the records.

Patients' Experiences of a National Patient Portal and Its Usability: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient portals not only provide patients with access to electronic health records (EHRs) and other digital health services, such as prescription renewals, but they can also improve patients' self-management, engagement with health care professionals (HCPs), and care processes. However, these benefits depend on patients' willingness to use patient portals and, ultimately, their experiences with the usefulness and ease of use of the portals. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the perceived usability of a national patient portal and the relationship of patients' very positive and very negative experiences with perceived usability. The study was aimed to be the first step in developing an approach for benchmarking the usability of patient portals in different countries. METHODS: Data were collected through a web-based survey of the My Kanta patient portal's logged-in patient users in Finland from January 24, 2022, to February 14, 2022. Respondents were asked to rate the usability of the patient portal, and the ratings were used to calculate approximations of the System Usability Scale (SUS) score. Open-ended questions asked the patients about their positive and negative experiences with the patient portal. The statistical analysis included multivariate regression, and the experience narratives were analyzed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Of the 1,262,708 logged-in patient users, 4719 responded to the survey, giving a response rate of 0.37%. The patient portal's usability was rated as good, with a mean SUS score of 74.3 (SD 14.0). Reporting a very positive experience with the portal was positively associated with perceived usability (ß=.51; P<.001), whereas reporting a very negative experience was negatively associated with perceived usability (ß=-1.28; P<.001). These variables explained 23% of the variation in perceived usability. The information provided and a lack of information were the most common positive and negative experiences. Furthermore, specific functionalities, such as prescription renewal and the ease of using the patient portal, were often mentioned as very positive experiences. The patients also mentioned negative emotions, such as anger and frustration, as part of their very negative experiences. CONCLUSIONS: The study offers empirical evidence about the significant role of individual experiences when patients are evaluating the usability of patient portals. The results suggest that positive and negative experiences provide relevant information that can be used for improving the patient portal's usability. Usability should be improved so that patients receive information efficiently, easily, and quickly. Respondents would also appreciate interactive features in the patient portal.

Perspectives on record-keeping practices in MDT meetings and meeting record utility.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Working collaboratively as a multidisciplinary team in the treatment and care of cancer patients is proven effective in increasing the quality of patient care. A multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting (MDTM) is the main vehicle that facilitates this collaborative work between different healthcare specialities, and an appropriate meeting record is essential to communicate the meeting's outcomes. There is limited research to date regarding MDTM documentation, and here we report on a sample of healthcare professional's perspectives on current practices. METHODOLOGY: A survey, distributed to a purposive snowball sample, is used to collect the perceptions on record-keeping at MDTMs from involved healthcare workers. The survey is descriptive and exploratory in nature and uses closed and open-ended questions offered in both English and Swedish. RESULTS: With a response of 37 healthcare workers, several commonly understood practices of MDTMs are confirmed, documentation is mostly electronic, encompasses suggested information, and the record is mostly acceptable in quality. The issues of responsibility, registering attendance, and verification of documentation can be improved. CONCLUSION: Electronic documentation is a laudable step that shows advancement in MDTM record-keeping. The highlighted quality of the records suggests that MDTM proceedings are reasonably well documented. There remain some important questions, with regard to standardization, centralization, and the responsibility for record-keeping at MDTMs.

Transition to telehealth : Engaging medical students in telemedicine healthcare delivery.

In recent years, telemedicine has been increasingly incorporated into medical practice, a process which has now been accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. As telemedicine continues to progress, it is necessary for medical institutions to incorporate telemedicine into their curricula, and to provide students with the necessary skills and experience to effectively carry out telemedicine consultations. The purposes of this study are to review the involvement of medical students with telemedicine and to determine both the benefits and the challenges experienced. A literature review on the MEDLINE; CINAHL Plus; APA PsychInfo; Library, Information Science and Technology Abstracts; and Health Business Elite databases was performed on September 7, 2020, yielding 561 results. 33 manuscripts were analysed, with the main benefits and challenges experienced by medical students summarized. In addition to increasing their understanding of the importance of telemedicine and the acquisition of telemedicine-specific skills, students may use telemedicine to act as a valuable workforce during the COVID-19 pandemic. Challenges that students face, such as discomfort with carrying out telemedicine consults and building rapport with patients, may be addressed through the incorporation of telemedicine teaching into the medical curricula through experiential learning. However, other more systemic challenges, such as technical difficulties and cost, need to be examined for the full benefits of telemedicine to be realized. Telemedicine is here to stay and has proven its worth during the COVID-19 pandemic, with medical students embracing its potential in assisting in medical clinics, simulation of clinical placements, and online classrooms.

Machine Learning-Based Analysis of Encrypted Medical Data in the Cloud: Qualitative Study of Expert Stakeholders' Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Third-party cloud-based data analysis applications are proliferating in electronic health (eHealth) because of the expertise offered and their monetary advantage. However, privacy and security are critical concerns when handling sensitive medical data in the cloud. Technical advances based on "crypto magic" in privacy-preserving machine learning (ML) enable data analysis in encrypted form for maintaining confidentiality. Such privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs) could be counterintuitive to relevant stakeholders in eHealth, which could in turn hinder adoption; thus, more attention is needed on human factors for establishing trust and transparency. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze eHealth expert stakeholders' perspectives and the perceived tradeoffs in regard to data analysis on encrypted medical data in the cloud, and to derive user requirements for development of a privacy-preserving data analysis tool. METHODS: We used semistructured interviews and report on 14 interviews with individuals having medical, technical, or research expertise in eHealth. We used thematic analysis for analyzing interview data. In addition, we conducted a workshop for eliciting requirements. RESULTS: Our results show differences in the understanding of and in trusting the technology; caution is advised by technical experts, whereas patient safety assurances are required by medical experts. Themes were identified with general perspectives on data privacy and practices (eg, acceptance of using external services), as well as themes highlighting specific perspectives (eg, data protection drawbacks and concerns of the data analysis on encrypted data). The latter themes result in requiring assurances and conformance testing for trusting tools such as the proposed ML-based tool. Communicating privacy, and utility benefits and tradeoffs with stakeholders is essential for trust. Furthermore, stakeholders and their organizations share accountability of patient data. Finally, stakeholders stressed the importance of informing patients about the privacy of their data. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the benefits and risks of using eHealth PETs is crucial, and collaboration among diverse stakeholders is essential. Assurances of the tool's privacy, accuracy, and patient safety should be in place for establishing trust of ML-based PETs, especially if used in the cloud.

A Qualitative Analysis of the Needs and Experiences of Hospital-based Clinicians when Accessing Medical Imaging.

As digital imaging is now a common and essential tool in the clinical workflow, it is important to understand the experiences of clinicians with medical imaging systems in order to guide future development. The objective of this paper was to explore health professionals' experiences, practices and preferences when using Picture Archiving and Communications Systems (PACS), to identify shortcomings in the existing technology and inform future developments. Semi-structured interviews are reported with 35 hospital-based healthcare professionals (3 interns, 11 senior health officers, 6 specialist registrars, 6 consultants, 2 clinical specialists, 5 radiographers, 1 sonographer, 1 radiation safety officer). Data collection took place between February 2019 and December 2020 and all data are analyzed thematically. A majority of clinicians report using PACS frequently (6+ times per day), both through dedicated PACS workstations, and through general-purpose desktop computers. Most clinicians report using basic features of PACS to view imaging and reports, and also to compare current with previous imaging, noting that they rarely use more advanced features, such as measuring. Usability is seen as a problem, including issues related to data privacy. More sustained training would help clinicians gain more value from PACS, particularly less experienced users. While the majority of clinicians report being unconcerned about sterility when accessing digital imaging, clinicians were open to the possibility of touchless operation using voice, and the ability to execute multiple commands with a single voice command would be welcomed.

Citizen-Patient Involvement in the Development of mHealth Technology: Protocol for a Systematic Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: The development of mobile technology for information retrieval and communication, both at individual and health organizational levels, has been extensive over the last decade. Mobile health (mHealth) technology is rapidly adapting to the health care service contexts to improve treatment, care, and effectiveness in health care services. OBJECTIVE: The overall aim of this scoping review is to explore the role of citizen-patient involvement in the development of mHealth technology in order to inform future interventions. By identifying key characteristics of citizen-patient involvement in system development, we aim to improve digital communication and collaboration between health care providers and citizen-patients, including sharing of health care data. METHODS: The systematic scoping review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews by searching literature in 3 steps. We will include literature reporting on the public, citizens, and patients participating in the development of mobile technology for health care purposes in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, EMBASE, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. A preliminary search was completed in MEDLINE and Scopus. The screening process will be conducted by 2 of the authors. Data will be extracted using a data extraction tool prepared for the study. RESULTS: The study is expected to identify research gaps that will inform and motivate the development of mHealth technology. The final report is planned for submission to an indexed journal in November 2020. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this review will be the first review to provide knowledge about how citizen-patients participate in system developments for mHealth tools and the value that such involvement adds to the system development process. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/16781.

Variation in resource allocation in urgent and emergency Care Systems in Ireland.

BACKGROUND: A key challenge for most systems is how to provide effective access to urgent and emergency care across rural and urban populations. Tensions about the placement and scope of hospital emergency services are longstanding in Irish political life and there has been recent reform to centralise hospital services in some regions. The focus of this paper is a system approach to examine the geographic variation in resourcing and utilisation of such care across GP practices, out-of-hours care, ambulance services, Emergency Departments and Local Injury Units in Ireland. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional study design to evaluate variation in resource allocation by aggregating geographic funding to various elements of the urgent and emergency care system and assessing patterns in hospital resource utilisation across the population. Expenditure, staffing, access and activity data were gathered from government sources, individual facilities and service providers, health professional bodies, private firms and central statistics. Data on costs and activity in 2014 are collated and presented at both county and regional levels. Analyses focus on resources spent on urgent and emergency care across geographic areas, the role of population concentration in allocation, the relationship between pre-hospital spending and in-hospital spending, and the utilisation of hospital-based emergency care resources by residents of each county. RESULTS: An array of funding mechanisms exists, resulting in a fragmented approach to the resourcing of urgent and emergency care. There are large differences in spending per capita at the county-level, ranging from between €50 and €200 per capita; however, these are less pronounced regionally. Distribution of hospital emergency care resources is highly skewed to the North East of the country, and away from the recently reconfigured South and Mid-West regions. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis advances the traditional approach of evaluating individual services or hospital resourcing. There are notable differences in utilisation of hospital-based emergency care resources at the regional level, indicating that populations within those regions which have been reconfigured have lower utilisation of hospital resources. There is a clear case for more integration in decision-making around funding and consideration of key principles, such as equity, to guide that process.

The effect of chiropractic treatment on the reaction and response times of special operation forces military personnel: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chiropractic care is commonly used to treat musculoskeletal conditions and has been endorsed by clinical practice guidelines as being evidence-based and cost-effective for the treatment of patients with low back pain. Gaps in the literature exist regarding the physiological outcomes of chiropractic treatment. Previous pilot work has indicated the possibility of improvements in response time following the application of chiropractic treatment. However, it is unknown whether or not chiropractic treatment is able to improve reaction and response times in specific populations of interest. One such population is the U.S. military special operation forces' (SOF) personnel. METHODS: This study is a randomized controlled trial of 120 asymptomatic volunteer SOF personnel. All participants are examined by a study doctor of chiropractic (DC) for eligibility prior to randomization. The participants are randomly allocated to either a treatment group receiving four treatments of chiropractic manipulative therapy (CMT) over 2 weeks or to a wait-list control group. The wait-list group does not receive any treatment but has assessments at the same time interval as the treatment group. The outcome measures are simple reaction times for dominant hand and dominant foot, choice reaction time with prompts calling for either hand or either foot, response time using Fitts' law tasks for small movements involving eye-hand coordination, and brief whole body movements using the t-wall, a commercially available product. At the first visit, all five tests are completed so that participants can familiarize themselves with the equipment and protocol. Assessments at the second and the final visits are used for data analysis. DISCUSSION: SOF personnel are highly motivated and extremely physically fit individuals whose occupation requires reaction times that are as quick as possible during the course of their assigned duties. A goal of CMT is to maximize the functionality and integration of the neuromusculoskeletal systems. Therefore, chiropractic treatment may be able to optimize the capacity of the numerous components of those systems, resulting in improved reaction time. The objective of this study is to test the hypothesis that CMT improves reaction and response times in asymptomatic SOF personnel. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02168153 . Registered on 12 June 2014.

Assessment of chiropractic treatment for active duty, U.S. military personnel with low back pain: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is highly prevalent and one of the most common causes of disability in U.S. armed forces personnel. Currently, no single therapeutic method has been established as a gold standard treatment for this increasingly prevalent condition. One commonly used treatment, which has demonstrated consistent positive outcomes in terms of pain and function within a civilian population is spinal manipulative therapy provided by doctors of chiropractic. Chiropractic care, delivered within a multidisciplinary framework in military healthcare settings, has the potential to help improve clinical outcomes for military personnel with low back pain. However, its effectiveness in a military setting has not been well established. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate changes in pain and disability in active duty service members with low back pain who are allocated to receive usual medical care plus chiropractic care versus treatment with usual medical care alone. METHODS/DESIGN: This pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial will enroll 750 active duty service members with low back pain at three military treatment facilities within the United States (250 from each site) who will be allocated to receive usual medical care plus chiropractic care or usual medical care alone for 6 weeks. Primary outcomes will include the numerical rating scale for pain intensity and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire at week 6. Patient reported outcomes of pain, disability, bothersomeness, and back pain function will be collected at 2, 4, 6, and 12 weeks from allocation. DISCUSSION: Because low back pain is one of the leading causes of disability among U.S. military personnel, it is important to find pragmatic and conservative treatments that will treat low back pain and preserve low back function so that military readiness is maintained. Thus, it is important to evaluate the effects of the addition of chiropractic care to usual medical care on low back pain and disability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial discussed in this article was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov with the NCT01692275 Date of registration: 6 September 2012.

"Do no harm": fortifying MDT collaboration in changing technological times.

PURPOSE: To examine the changes in multidisciplinary medical team activity and practices, with respect to the amount of patient cases, the information needs and technology used, with up to 10 multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) in a large teaching hospital over a 10-year period. METHODS: An investigation of MDT meeting activity was undertaken in November 2005 and repeated in November 2012 for the MDTs at a large university teaching hospital. Analysis of data from 8 MDTs was informed through long-term ethnographical study, and supplemented with 38 semi-structured interviews and a survey from 182 staff members of MDTs. RESULTS: Work rhythms change over time as a function of the volume of work and technology changes, such as the use of a picture archive and communication system (PACS), videoconferencing and an electronic patient record (EPR). Maintaining cohesive teamwork, system dependability, and patient safety in the context of rapid change is challenging. CONCLUSIONS: Benefits of MDT work are in evidence, but the causes are not fully understood. Instead of asking 'how can technology support more MDT activity?', we ask 'how can we preserve the benefits of human-human interaction in an increasingly technological environment?' and 'how can we ensure that we do no harm?' when introducing technology to support an increasingly demanding collaborative work setting. Introducing technology to streamline work might instead threaten the experienced improvement in patient services.

Multidisciplinary team meetings and their impact on workflow in radiology and pathology departments.

BACKGROUND: The development of multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) for radiology and pathology is a burgeoning area that increasingly impacts on work processes in both of these departments. The aim of this study was to examine work processes and quantify the time demands on radiologists and pathologists associated with MDTM practices at a large teaching hospital. The observations reported in this paper reflect a general trend affecting hospitals and our conclusions will have relevance for others implementing clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: For one month, all work related to clinical meetings between pathology and radiology with clinical staff was documented and later analysed. RESULTS: The number of meetings to which pathology and radiology contribute at a large university teaching hospital, ranges from two to eight per day, excluding grand rounds, and amounts to approximately 50 meetings per month for each department. For one month, over 300 h were spent by pathologists and radiologists on 81 meetings, where almost 1000 patients were discussed. For each meeting hour, there were, on average, 2.4 pathology hours and 2 radiology hours spent in preparation. Two to three meetings per week are conducted over a teleconferencing link. Average meeting time is 1 h. Preparation time per meeting ranges from 0.3 to 6 h for pathology, and 0.5 to 4 for radiology. The review process in preparation for meetings improves internal quality standards. Materials produced externally (for example imaging) can amount to almost 50% of the material to be reviewed on a single patient. The number of meetings per month has increased by 50% over the past two years. Further increase is expected in both the numbers and duration of meetings when scheduling issues are resolved. A changing trend in the management of referred patients with the development of MDTMs and the introduction of teleconferencing was noted. CONCLUSION: Difficulties are being experienced by pathology and radiology departments participating fully in several multidisciplinary teams. Time spent at meetings, and in preparation for MDTMs is significant. Issues of timing and the coordination of materials to be reviewed are sometimes irreconcilable. The exchange of patient materials with outside institutions is a cause for concern when full data are not made available in a timely fashion. The process of preparation for meetings is having a positive influence on quality, but more resources are needed in pathology and radiology to realise the full benefits of multidisciplinary team working.