↓ Skip to main content

Benefit-risk of Patients' Online Access to their Medical Records: Consensus Exercise of an International Expert Group

Overview of attention for article published in Yearbook of medical informatics, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Benefit-risk of Patients' Online Access to their Medical Records: Consensus Exercise of an International Expert Group
Published in
Yearbook of medical informatics, April 2018
DOI 10.1055/s-0038-1641202
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

 Patients' access to their computerised medical records (CMRs) is a legal right in many countries. However, little is reported about the benefit-risk associated with patients' online access to their CMRs.  To conduct a consensus exercise to assess the impact of patients' online access to their CMRs on the quality of care as defined in six domains by the Institute of Medicine (IoM), now the National Academy of Medicine (NAM).  A five-round Delphi study was conducted. Round One explored experts' (n = 37) viewpoints on providing patients with access to their CMRs. Round Two rated the appropriateness of statements arising from Round One (n = 16). The third round was an online panel discussion of findings (n = 13) with the members of both the International Medical Informatics Association and the European Federation of Medical Informatics Primary Health Care Informatics Working Groups. Two additional rounds, a survey of the revised consensus statements and an online workshop, were carried out to further refine consensus statements.  Thirty-seven responses from Round One were used as a basis to initially develop 15 statements which were categorised using IoM's domains of care quality. The experts agreed that providing patients online access to their CMRs for bookings, results, and prescriptions increased efficiency and improved the quality of medical records. Experts also anticipated that patients would proactively use their online access to share data with different health care providers, including emergencies. However, experts differed on whether access to limited or summary data was more useful to patients than accessing their complete records. They thought online access would change recording practice, but they were unclear about the benefit-risk of high and onerous levels of security. The 5-round process, finally, produced 16 consensus statements.  Patients' online access to their CMRs should be part of all CMR systems. It improves the process of health care, but further evidence is required about outcomes. Online access improves efficiency of bookings and other services. However, there is scope to improve many of the processes of care it purports to support, particularly the provision of a more effective interface and the protection of the vulnerable.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 12%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 4 5%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 34 45%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Computer Science 4 5%
Engineering 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 40 53%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 November 2018.
All research outputs
#31,195,265
of 34,376,207 outputs
Outputs from Yearbook of medical informatics
#346
of 373 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#333,323
of 370,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Yearbook of medical informatics
#44
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,376,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 373 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 370,422 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.