Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Original article

Vol. 150 No. 3536 (2020)

Attitudes and acceptance of patients undergoing visceral surgery towards an open access electronic medical record – a Swiss-German single-centre study

DOI
https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2020.20328
Cite this as:
Swiss Med Wkly. 2020;150:w20328
Published
01.09.2020

Summary

INTRODUCTION

With the digitalisation of patient medical records, providing patients with free access to their electronic medical record (EMR) has become an important topic of debate in many countries. Recent studies show that the quality of treatment in healthcare may be improved by encouraging patients to take an active part in their care. Providing patients with access to their EMR may also improve the patient-doctor relationship, adherence to treatment and patient satisfaction. In June 2015, the Swiss government passed a law to set the framework for a nationally coordinated EMR system. A major stipulation to this legislation is that patients and doctors must consent to having an open access EMR (oEMR). The aim of this study was to assess patients’ attitudes towards an oEMR.

METHODS

Consecutive patients attending the outpatient clinic of our department within two months were included in this study. Patients were asked to complete a questionnaire consisting of 43 items, including amongst others disease characteristics, their expectations regarding an oEMR and its implementation. This study was approved by the ethics committee of the Canton Zurich (BASEC-Nr. Req-2016-00383).

RESULTS

149 patients were included with a mean age of 52 (standard deviation 17) years. 42% suffered from abdominal diseases (benign or malignant), 26% from hernias, and 17% from anorectal disorders. 76% of the responding patients fully supported an oEMR. Among all items, a higher educational degree (odds ratio [OR] 55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 39–70), patients with general or half-private insurance (OR 10, 95% CI 0.99–100) and patients with suspected cancer (OR 6, 95% CI 0.93–42) were independent predictors for a positive attitude regarding an oEMR on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first study conducted in a hospital in the German-speaking part of Switzerland evaluating patients’ opinions regarding an oEMR. Overall a large majority of the patients support an oEMR. Patients with cancer, a higher educational degree and general or half-private insured patients were more likely to support an oEMR. An important next step would be to conduct studies investigating opinions of medical professionals during the implementation of an oEMR.

References

  1. Hassol A, Walker JM, Kidder D, Rokita K, Young D, Pierdon S, et al. Patient experiences and attitudes about access to a patient electronic health care record and linked web messaging. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004;11(6):505–13. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M1593
  2. Ralston JD, Revere D, Robins LS, Goldberg HI. Patients’ experience with a diabetes support programme based on an interactive electronic medical record: qualitative study. BMJ. 2004;328(7449):1159. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7449.1159
  3. Ross SE, Lin CT. The effects of promoting patient access to medical records: a review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003;10(2):129–38. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M1147
  4. Delbanco T, Walker J, Bell SK, Darer JD, Elmore JG, Farag N, et al. Inviting patients to read their doctors’ notes: a quasi-experimental study and a look ahead. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(7):461–70. doi:.https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-157-7-201210020-00002
  5. Ross SE, Moore LA, Earnest MA, Wittevrongel L, Lin CT. Providing a web-based online medical record with electronic communication capabilities to patients with congestive heart failure: randomized trial. J Med Internet Res. 2004;6(2):e12. doi:.https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6.2.e12
  6. Bundesgesetz über das elektronische Patientendossier (EPDG). 2015.
  7. Golder L, Jans C, Tschöpe S, Hagemann M, Schwab J, Schüpbach S, et al. Schlussbericht Swiss eHealth Barometer 2016: Öffentliche Meinung. Bern, Switzerland: gfs.Bern; 2016
  8. Ross SE, Todd J, Moore LA, Beaty BL, Wittevrongel L, Lin CT. Expectations of patients and physicians regarding patient-accessible medical records. J Med Internet Res. 2005;7(2):e13. doi:.https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7.2.e13
  9. Earnest MA, Ross SE, Wittevrongel L, Moore LA, Lin CT. Use of a patient-accessible electronic medical record in a practice for congestive heart failure: patient and physician experiences. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004;11(5):410–7. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M1479
  10. http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html.
  11. Raptis DA, Mettler T, Fischer MA, Patak M, Lesurtel M, Eshmuminov D, et al. Managing multicentre clinical trials with open source. Inform Health Soc Care. 2014;39(2):67–80. doi:.https://doi.org/10.3109/17538157.2013.812647
  12. Zanaboni P, Kummervold PE, Sørensen T, Johansen MA. Patient Use and Experience With Online Access to Electronic Health Records in Norway: Results From an Online Survey. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(2):e16144. doi:.https://doi.org/10.2196/16144
  13. Golder L, Jans C, Ivankovic M, Kress J, Bohn D, Herzog N. Swiss eHealth Barometer 2019: Bericht zur Bevölkerungsbefragung. Bern, Switzerland: gfs.Bern; 2019.
  14. Mold F, de Lusignan S, Sheikh A, Majeed A, Wyatt JC, Quinn T, et al. Patients’ online access to their electronic health records and linked online services: a systematic review in primary care. Br J Gen Pract. 2015;65(632):e141–51. doi:.https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp15X683941
  15. Fisher B, Britten N. Patient access to records: expectations of hospital doctors and experiences of cancer patients. Br J Gen Pract. 1993;43(367):52–6.
  16. Shaverdian N, Chang EM, Chu FI, Morasso EG, Pfeffer MA, Cheng EM, et al. Impact of Open Access to Physician Notes on Radiation Oncology Patients: Results from an Exploratory Survey. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2019;9(2):102–7. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2018.10.004
  17. Tenforde M, Nowacki A, Jain A, Hickner J. The association between personal health record use and diabetes quality measures. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(4):420–4. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-011-1889-0
  18. Ralston JD, Rutter CM, Carrell D, Hecht J, Rubanowice D, Simon GE. Patient use of secure electronic messaging within a shared medical record: a cross-sectional study. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(3):349–55. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-0899-z
  19. Masys D, Baker D, Butros A, Cowles KE. Giving patients access to their medical records via the internet: the PCASSO experience. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2002;9(2):181–91. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M1005
  20. Vodicka E, Mejilla R, Leveille SG, Ralston JD, Darer JD, Delbanco T, et al. Online access to doctors’ notes: patient concerns about privacy. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(9):e208. doi:.https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2670
  21. Pai HH, Lau F, Barnett J, Jones S. Meeting the health information needs of prostate cancer patients using personal health records. Curr Oncol. 2013;20(6):e561–9. doi:.https://doi.org/10.3747/co.20.1584
  22. Patel VN, Abramson E, Edwards AM, Cheung MA, Dhopeshwarkar RV, Kaushal R. Consumer attitudes toward personal health records in a beacon community. Am J Manag Care. 2011;17(4):e104–20.

Most read articles by the same author(s)