'Getting it write' in a new era of patient online access to primary care health records.

AIM: To explore how to help make online consultation notes easier for patient audiences to understand. BACKGROUND: Most patients in England will soon be able to access all new prospective entries (including free-text) within their online primary care health record via the NHS App or other online services. METHOD: We conducted interviews and focus group discussions with 26 patients from underserved communities. Participants responded to vignettes about fictional patient consultation scenarios and assessed the clarity of corresponding simulated records. Participants were then asked to identify potential comprehension issues, offensive content, or anxiety triggers. RESULTS: Most participants struggled to understand a large proportion of simulated notes, particularly medical acronyms, clinician shorthand, and non-clinical abbreviations. Participants also identified issues that may cause unintended offence or additional anxiety. Participants considered that most patients will struggle to fully understand the content of their consultation notes in their current format. They made a number of suggestions about how this service may be improved to meet the needs of patient audiences and maintain positive patient-clinician relationships. CONCLUSION: Opening up online record access to include patient audiences necessitates a significant cultural shift in the way that consultation notes are written and used. To maximise NHS investment in this policy and avoid worsening health inequalities, it is essential to ensure that all patients can understand and access the benefits of online access to their notes. To do this, clinicians need to be supported to manage the challenges of writing for patient audiences, while continuing to maintain effective clinical care.

Exploring potential drivers of patient engagement with their health data through digital platforms: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement when providing patient access to health data results from an interaction between the available tools and individual capabilities. The recent digital advancements of the healthcare field have altered the manifestation and importance of patient engagement. However, a comprehensive assessment of what factors contribute to patient engagement remain absent. In this review article, we synthesised the most frequently discussed factors that can foster patient engagement with their health data. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and Google Scholar. Relevant data were synthesized within 7 layers using a thematic analysis: (1) social and demographic factors, (2) patient ability factors, (3) patient motivation factors, (4) factors related to healthcare professionals' attitudes and skills, (5) health system factors, (6) technological factors, and (7) policy factors. RESULTS: We identified 5801 academic and 200 Gy literature records, and included 292 (4.83%) in this review. Overall, 44 factors that can affect patient engagement with their health data were extracted. We extracted 6 social and demographic factors, 6 patient ability factors, 12 patient motivation factors, 7 factors related to healthcare professionals' attitudes and skills, 4 health system factors, 6 technological factors, and 3 policy factors. CONCLUSIONS: Improving patient engagement with their health data enables the development of patient-centered healthcare, though it can also exacerbate existing inequities. While expanding patient access to health data is an important step towards fostering shared decision-making in healthcare and subsequently empowering patients, it is important to ensure that these developments reach all sectors of the community.

An Age-Progression Intervention for Smoking Cessation: A Pilot Study Investigating the Influence of Two Sets of Instructions on Intervention Efficacy.

BACKGROUND: Research on age-progression facial morphing interventions for smoking cessation has not investigated the effect of different instructions for intervention delivery. The objective of this pilot study was to investigate the influence of two instruction types used to deliver the intervention on efficacy of the intervention. METHOD: Women were recruited and randomly allocated to an age-progression intervention session with (i) neutral instructions; (ii) instructions designed to reassure; or (iii) a condition that controlled for participant engagement ("control"). The conditions were delivered in a one-time procedure, after which primary (quitting intentions) and secondary (cigarettes/week, quit attempts) outcomes were measured immediately post-intervention, and at 1 and 3 months. RESULTS: Seventy-two women (M = 25.7; SD = 0.9) were recruited and randomly allocated to condition (Neutral n = 27, Reassuring n = 22, Control n = 23). Quitting intentions were higher in the Reassuring versus Control arm (3 months post-intervention, F = 4.37, p = 0.016, 95% CI [0.231, 2.539], eta2 = 0.11); quit attempts were greater in the two intervention arms (58%) versus Control (1-month post-intervention, 15%) (χ2 = 9.83, p < 0.05, OR 1.00 [0.28, 3.63]). CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the importance of optimising instructions to enhance intervention efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Record: NCT03749382.

"Test-Retest Reliability of Intraocular Pressure Measurements with Office-Based versus Home-Based Rebound Tonometers".

PRCIS: Intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained with the HOME2 rebound tonometer are interchangeable with measurements obtained using the office-based IC100 and IC200 rebound tonometers, making characterization of circadian IOP achievable with no inter-device sources of variability. PURPOSE: To evaluate test-retest reliability between intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained with a home rebound tonometer operated by patients and those obtained with office rebound tonometers operated by experienced clinical staff. METHODS: Following training and practice with a home rebound tonometer (iCare HOME2) in a randomly selected eye, patients with established or suspected open-angle glaucoma underwent IOP measurement in the fellow eye as follows in randomized order: 3 good quality measurements with the iCare IC100 operated by experienced clinical staff, 3 good quality measurements with the iCare IC200 operated by experienced clinical staff, and 3 good quality measurements with the HOME2 operated by the subject. The Shrout-Fleisch intraclass correlation coefficient ICC (2,1) was the measure of reliability utilized based on the model using two-way random effects, absolute agreement, and single measurement. RESULTS: Thirty eyes of 30 patients were evaluated. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) for IOP measurements taken with the IC100 and HOME2 was 0.97, with the IC200 and HOME2 was 0.96, and with the IC100 and IC200 was 0.97. Test-retest reliability between HOME2 and IC100 (ICC 0.90), HOME2 and IC200 (ICC 0.92), and IC100 and IC200 (ICC 0.94) all reflected excellent test-retest reliability. CONCLUSION: The test-retest reliability of IOP measurements taken by patients using the iCare HOME2 self-tonometer compared with IOP measurements taken by trained operators using the iCare IC100 and IC200 tonometers was uniformly excellent (ICCs all ≥0.9). These findings indicate that these three devices should be considered interchangeable for the clinical assessment of circadian IOP.

Experiences and opinions of general practitioners with patient online record access: an online survey in England.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the experiences and opinions of general practitioners (GPs) in England regarding patients having access to their full online GP health records. DESIGN: Convenience sample, online survey. PARTICIPANTS: 400 registered GPs in England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Investigators measured GPs' experiences and opinions about online record access (ORA), including patient care and their practice. RESULTS: A total of 400 GPs from all regions of England responded. A minority (130, 33%) believed ORA was a good idea. Most GPs believed a majority of patients would worry more (364, 91%) or find their GP records more confusing than helpful (338, 85%). Most GPs believed a majority of patients would find significant errors in their records (240, 60%), would better remember their care plan (280, 70%) and feel more in control of their care (243, 60%). The majority believed they will/already spend more time addressing patients' questions outside of consultations (357, 89%), that consultations will/already take significantly longer (322, 81%) and that they will be/already are less candid in their documentation (289, 72%) after ORA. Nearly two-thirds of GPs believed ORA would increase their litigation (246, 62%). CONCLUSIONS: Similar to clinicians in other countries, GPs in our sample were sceptical of ORA, believing patients would worry more and find their records more confusing than helpful. Most GPs also believed the practice would exacerbate work burdens. However, the majority of GPs in this survey also agreed there were multiple benefits to patients having online access to their primary care health records. The findings of this survey also contribute to a growing body of contrastive research from countries where ORA is advanced, demonstrating clinicians are sceptical while studies indicate patients appear to derive multiple benefits.

Manchester Intermittent Diet in Gestational Diabetes Acceptability Study (MIDDAS-GDM): a two-arm randomised feasibility protocol trial of an intermittent low-energy diet (ILED) in women with gestational diabetes and obesity in Greater Manchester.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is rising in the UK and is associated with maternal and neonatal complications. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance advises first-line management with healthy eating and physical activity which is only moderately effective for achieving glycaemic targets. Approximately 30% of women require medication with metformin and/or insulin. There is currently no strong evidence base for any particular dietary regimen to improve outcomes in GDM. Intermittent low-energy diets (ILEDs) are associated with improved glycaemic control and reduced insulin resistance in type 2 diabetes and could be a viable option in the management of GDM. This study aims to test the safety, feasibility and acceptability of an ILED intervention among women with GDM compared with best National Health Service (NHS) care. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: We aim to recruit 48 women with GDM diagnosed between 24 and 30 weeks gestation from antenatal clinics at Wythenshawe and St Mary's hospitals, Manchester Foundation Trust, over 13 months starting in November 2022. Participants will be randomised (1:1) to ILED (2 low-energy diet days/week of 1000 kcal and 5 days/week of the best NHS care healthy diet and physical activity advice) or best NHS care 7 days/week until delivery of their baby. Primary outcomes include uptake and retention of participants to the trial and adherence to both dietary interventions. Safety outcomes will include birth weight, gestational age at delivery, neonatal hypoglycaemic episodes requiring intervention, neonatal hyperbilirubinaemia, admission to special care baby unit or neonatal intensive care unit, stillbirths, the percentage of women with hypoglycaemic episodes requiring third-party assistance, and significant maternal ketonaemia (defined as ≥1.0 mmol/L). Secondary outcomes will assess the fidelity of delivery of the interventions, and qualitative analysis of participant and healthcare professionals' experiences of the diet. Exploratory outcomes include the number of women requiring metformin and/or insulin. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee (22/EE/0119). Findings will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and shared with diabetes charitable bodies and organisations in the UK, such as Diabetes UK and the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05344066.

Using Natural Language Processing to Identify Different Lens Pathology in Electronic Health Records.

PURPOSE: Nearly all published ophthalmology-related Big Data studies rely exclusively on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) billing codes to identify patients with particular ocular conditions. However, inaccurate or nonspecific codes may be used. We assessed whether natural language processing (NLP), as an alternative approach, could more accurately identify lens pathology. DESIGN: Database study comparing the accuracy of NLP versus ICD billing codes to properly identify lens pathology. METHODS: We developed an NLP algorithm capable of searching free-text lens exam data in the electronic health record (EHR) to identify the type(s) of cataract present, cataract density, presence of intraocular lenses, and other lens pathology. We applied our algorithm to 17.5 million lens exam records in the Sight Outcomes Research Collaborative (SOURCE) repository. We selected 4314 unique lens-exam entries and asked 11 clinicians to assess whether all pathology present in the entries had been correctly identified in the NLP algorithm output. The algorithm's sensitivity at accurately identifying lens pathology was compared with that of the ICD codes. RESULTS: The NLP algorithm correctly identified all lens pathology present in 4104 of the 4314 lens-exam entries (95.1%). For less common lens pathology, algorithm findings were corroborated by reviewing clinicians for 100% of mentions of pseudoexfoliation material and 99.7% for phimosis, subluxation, and synechia. Sensitivity at identifying lens pathology was better for NLP (0.98 [0.96-0.99] than for billing codes (0.49 [0.46-0.53]). CONCLUSIONS: Our NLP algorithm identifies and classifies lens abnormalities routinely documented by eye-care professionals with high accuracy. Such algorithms will help researchers to properly identify and classify ocular pathology, broadening the scope of feasible research using real-world data.

Mapping Patients' Online Record Access Worldwide: Preliminary Results from an International Survey of Healthcare Experts.

While research on the effects of patient access to health records is increasing, a basic understanding of the spread of patient-accessible electronic health records worldwide is lacking. In this survey of healthcare experts with professional and personal experience from 29 countries, we explored the state of patient online record access (ORA). We asked participants whether ORA exists in their country and which information is available through it. Experts in all polled countries reported having some national access to health records, with 6 (21%) countries providing exclusively paper-based records and 23 (79%) countries having ORA. Overview of test/lab results and prescription/medication lists were the most commonly available information. Free-text clinical notes were accessible in less than half of the surveyed countries (12, 41%). We will continue to map the state of patient ORA, focusing on traditionally underrepresented countries.

Users' views on the use of a smartwatch app to collect daily symptom data in individuals with multiple long-term conditions (Multimorbidity): A qualitative study.

Introduction: Long-term conditions are a major burden on health systems. One way to facilitate more research and better clinical care among patients with long-term conditions is to collect accurate data on their daily symptoms (patient-generated health data) using wearable technologies. Whilst evidence is growing for the use of wearable technologies in single conditions, there is less evidence of the utility of frequent symptom tracking in those who have more than one condition. Aims: To explore patient views of the acceptability of collecting daily patient-generated health data for three months using a smartwatch app. Methods: Watch Your Steps was a longitudinal study which recruited 53 patients to track over 20 symptoms per day for a 90-day period using a study app on smartwatches. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a sub-sample of 20 participants to explore their experience of engaging with the app. Results: In a population of older people with multimorbidity, patients were willing and able to engage with a patient-generated health data app on a smartwatch. It was suggested that to maintain engagement over a longer period, more 'real-time' feedback from the app should be available. Participants did not seem to consider the management of more than one condition to be a factor in either engagement or use of the app, but the presence of severe or chronic pain was at times a barrier. Conclusion: This study has provided preliminary evidence that multimorbidity was not a major barrier to engagement with patient-generated health data via a smartwatch symptom tracking app.

Generative Language Models and Open Notes: Exploring the Promise and Limitations.

Patients' online record access (ORA) is growing worldwide. In some countries, including the United States and Sweden, access is advanced with patients obtaining rapid access to their full records on the web including laboratory and test results, lists of prescribed medications, vaccinations, and even the very narrative reports written by clinicians (the latter, commonly referred to as "open notes"). In the United States, patient's ORA is also available in a downloadable form for use with other apps. While survey studies have shown that some patients report many benefits from ORA, there remain challenges with implementation around writing clinical documentation that patients may now read. With ORA, the functionality of the record is evolving; it is no longer only an aide memoire for doctors but also a communication tool for patients. Studies suggest that clinicians are changing how they write documentation, inviting worries about accuracy and completeness. Other concerns include work burdens; while few objective studies have examined the impact of ORA on workload, some research suggests that clinicians are spending more time writing notes and answering queries related to patients' records. Aimed at addressing some of these concerns, clinician and patient education strategies have been proposed. In this viewpoint paper, we explore these approaches and suggest another longer-term strategy: the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) to support clinicians in documenting narrative summaries that patients will find easier to understand. Applied to narrative clinical documentation, we suggest that such approaches may significantly help preserve the accuracy of notes, strengthen writing clarity and signals of empathy and patient-centered care, and serve as a buffer against documentation work burdens. However, we also consider the current risks associated with existing generative AI. We emphasize that for this innovation to play a key role in ORA, the cocreation of clinical notes will be imperative. We also caution that clinicians will need to be supported in how to work alongside generative AI to optimize its considerable potential.

The association of herpes zoster and influenza vaccinations with the risk of developing dementia: a population-based cohort study within the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

BACKGROUND: Dementia affects ability to remember, think, or make decisions that interfere with doing everyday activities. There is no cure, therefore any prevention or delay of the onset is of importance. This study aims to investigate the association between zoster and influenza vaccinations and the risk of developing dementia. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study using electronic health records from 1469 general practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum database with linked hospital episode statistics (HES) and Office for National Statistics (ONS) mortality records. We built two 'matched cohorts': zoster vaccine (854,745 exposed individuals) matched with 8.8 million comparators without a history of zoster vaccination, and influenza vaccine (742,487 exposed individuals) matched with 7.12 million comparators without a history of vaccination as another comparator group. The cohorts were then followed to assess the association of exposure (vaccine) with outcome (dementia diagnosis). RESULTS: Zoster vaccination was associated with a lower risk of dementia diagnosis (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.78 with 95% CI: 0.77-0.79), Alzheimer's diagnosis (adjusted HR 0.91 with 95% CI: 0.89-0.92 and other types of dementia (adjusted HR 0.71 with 95% CI: 0.69-0.72). Influenza vaccination also was associated with a slightly reduced hazard of dementia risk (adjusted HR 0.96 with 95% CI: 0.94-0.97). CONCLUSION: Both zoster vaccine for prevention of shingles / herpes zoster and influenza vaccine to prevent influenza were associated with diminished risk of dementia, with the zoster association appearing more pronounced.

Changes in Documentation Due to Patient Access to Electronic Health Records: Protocol for a Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) are increasingly being implemented. Despite reported benefits to patients, the innovation has prompted concerns among health care professionals (HCPs), including the possibility that access incurs a "dumbing down" of clinical records. Currently, no review has investigated empirical evidence of whether and how documentation changes after introducing PAEHRs. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents the protocol for a scoping review examining potential subjective and objective changes in HCPs documentation after using PAEHRs. METHODS: This scoping review will be carried out based on the framework of Arksey and O'Malley. Several databases will be used to conduct a literature search (APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, PubMed, and Web of Science Core Collection). Authors will participate in screening identified papers to explore the research questions: How do PAEHRs affect HCPs' documentation practices? and What subjective and objective changes to the clinical notes arise after patient access? Only studies that relate to actual use experiences, and not merely prior expectations about PAEHRs, will be selected in the review. Data abstraction will include but will not be limited to publication type, publication year, country, sample characteristics, setting, study aim, research question, and conclusions. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool will be used to assess the quality of the studies included. RESULTS: The results from this scoping review will be presented as a narrative synthesis structured along the key themes of the corpus of evidence. Additional data will be prepared in charts or tabular format. We anticipate the results to be presented in a scoping review at a later date. They will be disseminated at scientific conferences and through publication in a peer-reviewed journal. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first scoping review that considers potential change in documentation after implementation of PAEHRs. The results can potentially help affirm or refute prior opinions and expectations among various stakeholders about the use of PAEHRs and thereby help to address uncertainties. Results may help to provide guidance to clinicians in writing notes and thus have immediate practical relevance to care. In addition, the review will help to identify any substantive research gaps in this field of research. In the longer term, our findings may contribute to the development of shared documentation guidelines, which in turn are central to improving patient communication and safety. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/46722.

Primary care staff's views and experience of patients' online access to their electronic health record: a qualitative exploration.

BACKGROUND: NHS England have announced plans to enable all adult patients to have full prospective access to their primary care record by default. Despite this, little is known about the views and experiences of primary care staff regarding patients' online records access (ORA). AIM: To examine the views and experiences of primary care staff regarding patients having online access to their primary care health record, and how this service could be supported and improved. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study of a purposive sample of 30 primary care staff in England. METHOD: Online semi-structured interviews with primary care staff were conducted between December 2021 and March 2022. Verbatim transcripts were analysed inductively using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Most staff agreed with the principle of patient access to online health records but had mixed feelings regarding the potential benefits and drawbacks of applying this in practice. Staff identified opportunities for improving patient engagement, health literacy, and efficiencies in some administrative workloads, as well as concerns about maintaining the clinical integrity of patient records and ensuring that staff and patient safety and wellbeing are protected. CONCLUSION: Participants acknowledged that ORA may transform the purpose and function of the record and that ORA has potential to instigate a significant cultural shift in primary care, changing how staff work and relate to patients. This underlines the need for additional staff training and support to expand capability and capacity to adapt practice and enhance patient engagement with, and understanding of, their health records.

Interventions Aimed at Enhancing Health Care Providers' Behavior Toward the Prescription of Mobile Health Apps: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Mobile health (mHealth) apps have great potential to support the management of chronic conditions. Despite widespread acceptance of mHealth apps by the public, health care providers (HCPs) are reluctant to prescribe or recommend such apps to their patients. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to classify and evaluate interventions aimed at encouraging HCPs to prescribe mHealth apps. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies published from January 1, 2008, to August 5, 2022, using 4 electronic databases: MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. We included studies that evaluated interventions encouraging HCPs to prescribe mHealth apps. Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of the studies. The "National Institute of Health's quality assessment tool for before-and-after (pretest-posttest design) studies with no control group" and "the mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT)" were used to assess the methodological quality. Owing to high levels of heterogeneity between interventions, measures of practice change, specialties of HCPs, and modes of delivery, we conducted a qualitative analysis. We adopted the behavior change wheel as a framework for classifying the included interventions according to intervention functions. RESULTS: In total, 11 studies were included in this review. Most of the studies reported positive findings, with improvements in a number of outcomes, including increased knowledge of mHealth apps among clinicians, improved self-efficacy or confidence in prescribing, and an increased number of mHealth app prescriptions. On the basis of the behavior change wheel, 9 studies reported elements of environmental restructuring such as providing HCPs with lists of apps, technological systems, time, and resources. Furthermore, 9 studies included elements of education, particularly workshops, class lectures, individual sessions with HCPs, videos, or toolkits. Furthermore, training was incorporated in 8 studies using case studies or scenarios or app appraisal tools. Coercion and restriction were not reported in any of the interventions included. The quality of the studies was high in relation to the clarity of aims, interventions, and outcomes but weaker in terms of sample size, power calculations, and duration of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified interventions to encourage app prescriptions by HCPs. Recommendations for future research should consider previously unexplored intervention functions such as restrictions and coercion. The findings of this review can help inform mHealth providers and policy makers regarding the key intervention strategies impacting mHealth prescriptions and assist them in making informed decisions to encourage this adoption.

Patient Online Record Access in English Primary Care: Qualitative Survey Study of General Practitioners' Views.

BACKGROUND: In 2022, NHS England announced plans to ensure that all adult primary care patients in England would have full online access to new data added to their general practitioner (GP) record. However, this plan has not yet been fully implemented. Since April 2020, the GP contract in England has already committed to offering patients full online record access on a prospective basis and on request. However, there has been limited research into UK GPs' experiences and opinions about this practice innovation. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the experiences and opinions of GPs in England about patients' access to their full web-based health record, including clinicians' free-text summaries of the consultation (so-called "open notes"). METHODS: In March 2022, using a convenience sample, we administered a web-based mixed methods survey of 400 GPs in the United Kingdom to explore their experiences and opinions about the impact on patients and GPs' practices to offer patients full online access to their health records. Participants were recruited using the clinician marketing service Doctors.net.uk from registered GPs currently working in England. We conducted a qualitative descriptive analysis of written responses ("comments") to 4 open-ended questions embedded in a web-based questionnaire. RESULTS: Of 400 GPs, 224 (56%) left comments that were classified into 4 major themes: increased strain on GP practices, the potential to harm patients, changes to documentation, and legal concerns. GPs believed that patient access would lead to extra work for them, reduced efficiency, and increased burnout. The participants also believed that access would increase patient anxiety and incur risks to patient safety. Experienced and perceived documentation changes included reduced candor and changes to record functionality. Anticipated legal concerns encompassed fears about increased litigation risks and lack of legal guidance to GPs about how to manage documentation that would be read by patients and potential third parties. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides timely information on the views of GPs in England regarding patient access to their web-based health records. Overwhelmingly, GPs were skeptical about the benefits of access both for patients and to their practices. These views are similar to those expressed by clinicians in other countries, including Nordic countries and the United States before patient access. The survey was limited by the convenience sample, and it is not possible to infer that our sample was representative of the opinions of GPs in England. More extensive, qualitative research is required to understand the perspectives of patients in England after experiencing access to their web-based records. Finally, further research is needed to explore objective measures of the impact of patient access to their records on health outcomes, clinician workload, and changes to documentation.