Next Article in Journal
Assessing the Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of Genomic Sequencing
Next Article in Special Issue
A Multi-Stage Human Factors and Comfort Assessment of Instrumented Insoles Designed for Use in a Connected Health Infrastructure
Previous Article in Journal
Sex, Race, and Age Differences in Observed Years of Life, Healthy Life, and Able Life among Older Adults in The Cardiovascular Health Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of an mHealth Medication Regimen Self-Management Program for African American and Hispanic Uncontrolled Hypertensives
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JPM
Volume 5
Issue 4
10.3390/jpm5040452
jpm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Patients’ Online Access to Their Primary Care Electronic Health Records and Linked Online Services: Implications for Research and Practice

by
Freda Mold
1,* and
Simon De Lusignan
2
1
School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7TE, UK
2
Department of Health Care Management and Policy, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Pers. Med. 2015, 5(4), 452-469; https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm5040452
Submission received: 27 July 2015 / Revised: 23 November 2015 / Accepted: 30 November 2015 / Published: 4 December 2015
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Smart, Personalized Digital Health and Medicine)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Online access to medical records and linked services, including requesting repeat prescriptions and booking appointments, enables patients to personalize their access to care. However, online access creates opportunities and challenges for both health professionals and their patients, in practices and in research. The challenges for practice are the impact of online services on workload and the quality and safety of health care. Health professionals are concerned about the impact on workload, especially from email or other online enquiry systems, as well as risks to privacy. Patients report how online access provides a convenient means through which to access their health provider and may offer greater satisfaction if they get a timely response from a clinician. Online access and services may also result in unforeseen consequences and may change the nature of the patient-clinician interaction. Research challenges include: (1) Ensuring privacy, including how to control inappropriate carer and guardian access to medical records; (2) Whether online access to records improves patient safety and health outcomes; (3) Whether record access increases disparities across social classes and between genders; and (4) Improving efficiency. The challenges for practice are: (1) How to incorporate online access into clinical workflow; (2) The need for a business model to fund the additional time taken. Creating a sustainable business model for a safe, private, informative, more equitable online service is needed if online access to records is to be provided outside of pay-for-service systems.

1. Introduction

Providing online access to health care records and services may improve access and the personalization of primary health care. Online services have been described as fundamental to patient empowerment and may drive the improvement and organization of services [1,2].
Online access is the process of a patient, their carer, or their guardian logging on to access all or part of their electronic health record (EHR) with the ability to view, and sometimes edit or comment. Linked online services enable patients to communicate with their general practice, doctor, or other health care worker by email or through a web portal. Online services include tasks such as booking appointments or requesting repeat prescriptions (prescription refills) without seeing their doctor. Online access and services can be accessible from a patient’s home, workplace, or mobile computing device.
There have been some notable successes in the provision of online services in the United States. Organizations such as Kaiser Permanente and the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) have a large number of patients using their online services. These services include online appointment booking, repeat prescription requests, test result collection, and e-mail to clinicians [3,4].
In the UK, patient online access [5] has been successfully piloted [6], but not widely adopted beyond appointments and repeat prescriptions [7]. The successes seen in pilots of more extensive online services have yet to be more widely replicated. Progress to date has been limited by professional concerns about security and privacy [8,9,10], legal constraints [11], and low uptake [12]. These concerns are echoed in international studies [13]. Despite this slow progress, in 2010 the UK government announced in its health strategy that all patients in the English National Health Service (NHS) are to have access to their own health record by 2015 [14]. The guidance developed with the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) was not widely adopted [15] and was subsequently revised [16].
This review aims to identify the key opportunities and challenges affecting online access to electronic health records and other online services in primary care.

2. Method

This review identifies new and recurring themes about online record access and services for research and practice. We updated our previous reviews with new evidence [1,2]. We replicated our previous search strategy, including hand searches, to ensure all additional evidence was identified between 2013 and 2015 [17]. We used a comprehensive search strategy/string comprised of a mixture of index terms (i.e., MEDLINE/MeSH Terms) and keywords (in titles/abstracts). This search strategy/string is available by request. Similarly, a range of study designs were also included (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, and trial designs). Search results were stored using Endnote (v7). Evidence from 19 articles met our original inclusion/exclusion criteria. We excluded systems related to a single disease area, such as diabetes, as single disease conditions have developed their own applications with use driven by the needs of that specific condition.

3. Findings

3.1. Users and Non-Users of Online Access and Services

Adult females were the largest group of online access users [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28] and were also the most active adopters of online services [20,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29].
Unsurprisingly, lack of access to the internet was a barrier to use [30,31,32,33,34,35,36], though two studies reported it was not [37,38]. Patients reported being happy to share records with family or another health care professional and valued being able to print out segments of their records [18,30,39,40,41,42,43,44].
Previous studies have highlighted disparity in access between patient groups. There was lower use by non-white ethnicities [35,45], those from lower socioeconomic groups [33,46,47,48], and those in poorer health and from vulnerable groups [26,31,34,49].

3.2. Patient Safety

Online access may improve patient safety, primarily through identifying errors in medication lists and adverse drug reactions [26,39,50,51,52,53,54,55]. Identifying errors may limit the potential for severe harm [50].
There was no reported evidence of harm to patients from the provision of patient online access; though neither was there evidence of improved health outcomes [56,57,58]. Health professionals have reported concerns that viewing notes could potentially be disquieting to patients and might lead to the exploitation of the vulnerable. This in turn could impact negatively on patients’ willingness to disclose information and impact the doctor-patient relationship [18,30,39,59,60,61,62,63]. Recent studies have identified patients’ preference to control access to specific types of information, again raising concerns about patient safety if this information is not available to other health professionals involved in their care [64,65,66]. Patients wanted to choose the information they wish to share with family and their health care professionals, including the level of control based on their perception of the sensitivity of the record contents [66].

3.3. Patient Satisfaction

Patients who used online access reported positive experiences and satisfaction. They perceived these systems enabled better self-care [6,18,39,56,63,67,68,69,70,71,72,73] or empowered them to communicate more effectively with clinicians [39,40,41,58,59,63,69,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81]. There was very little research reporting patients’ concerns about unauthorized access [81] or misuse [82].
Similarly, patients reported greater convenience, specifically time-saving compared with other methods of interaction with their health care provider [18,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90]. Time-saving was also important to clinicians in terms of avoiding in-person clinic visits [86,87] and better management of patient care [91].
Satisfaction for patients depended on whether professionals were able to respond in a timely manner [25,47,53,62,83,92,93,94,95,96]. Differences emerged between patient and professional groups about whether online services (such as email contact) should be direct or not. Patients preferred direct communication with their health care provider [97,98,99,100], while clinicians preferred support staff to filter messages [45,61,100].
Email contact also had advantages for patients: they felt better able to express ideas or concerns [79,86,89,97,101,102,103,104], which again translated in to positive patient experience and greater satisfaction [25,50,57,71,77,78,85,89,95,97,98,105,106,107,108,109]. Little is known about the impact on health outcomes, and further research is needed in this area [110].

3.4. Workload and Organization of Care

Much of the research into online access and services suggested that clinicians are concerned about the potential effect on workload [111,112,113,114]. While several studies reported an increase in workload [21,32,39,100,115,116,117], other studies reported a large but temporary increase that plateaued in time [62,118]. Other studies described a decline in workload [57,62,63,81,86,116,117,119].
Studies report differing impacts on routine face-to-face consultations. Some report a decline in attendance [57,101,107,115,120,121], some an increase in attendance [21,39,118], and others no change [81,95,120,122]. Other forms of contact, such as email or web-messaging, may create a new and increased volume of contacts [57,78,107,115,116,117,118,123], while others report no change [89,97,108,124].
There was also an inconsistent impact on telephone contact; this may rise and then fall back when new services are offered [62,118]. Other studies reported no change in telephone volume [89,95,97,100,117,120], and a few described an increase [21,115,119].
There was little research of clinicians’ use of email to communicate with their patients; what research exists indicates that only a minority of clinicians (between 3% and 17%) regularly used email for this purpose [32,109,125,126,127]. Use of email to manage conditions was largely limited to problems that were manageable using this medium [24,25,34,79,83,88,94,106,115,118]. However, more complex problems were not suitable for this method of communication [88,99].
Online services have been perceived as fundamentally changing the organization of care, and implementation meant the re-organization of working practices [62,72,90,128]. Clinicians changed the way they wrote their medical records once they started to share these with the patient [63]. The nature of communication may also change. Changes included the tone, content, directness of the condition under discussion, and even a subtle shift in the balance of power in favor of the patient [61,92,103,114,129].
The rise of email appointment reminder systems in primary care decreased rates of failure to attend appointments [28]. The actual mode used to send the reminder was also important, some patients preferred email and others text messages [130].

3.5. Security and Privacy

Although patients expressed a willingness to trade-off security for ease of access [102,131], clinicians were more concerned, preferring proper controlled access that was more likely to protect patients’ privacy [55,132].

3.6. Fees for Services

Reimbursement to service providers seemed to be highly effective in promoting clinician uptake of online services. While some organizations in the USA (Kaiser and the VHA) have experimented with incorporating a fee, this practice is not widespread [87,133].
While many patients were positive about online services, they were not willing to pay for them. Patients who would consider a fee gave it a low financial value [31,34,93,134,135].

3.7. Technological Advancements

Research findings highlighted clinicians’ concerns about privacy and confidentiality [32,41,55,74,79,82,83,85,92,109,124,126,136,137,138,139]. In developing new contact systems, a formalized process is required to ensure governance procedures comply with existing regulations [43,45,90,94,102,109,118,125,128,140]. Although some clinicians lacked knowledge about what constituted an appropriate framework for protecting privacy [72,141,142], there is clearly a need for future guideline development [45,82,63,99,143,144,145]. More recent research focused on how to match technologies to different patient groups [146] and how to integrate these technologies into workflow [147].
A number of novel technologies had been introduced but not widely adopted:
  • Links to X-ray and scan images [22,61,92];
  • Automated tracking of test results [77];
  • Text messaging question answering and answering machine services [140];
  • Portals that can use codes or pictures of medications to avoid medication names being displayed [30];
  • Web-based triage systems [24].
Integration of novel technologies required complex technical developments [61,92]. Many portals offering online access to records were designed to deliver full or partial online access [88,99]. However, despite this high level of technical innovation, levels of patient uptake remained low [23,24,43,70,100,139,148,149,150,151].

4. Implications for Research

4.1. Health Outcomes

Research into online access and services has yet to demonstrate how health outcomes can be improved. This may be particularly important for patients with complex needs, such as multiple comorbidities and associated polypharmacy. Research that evaluates the impact of online access in more complex cases compared to lower risk cases might provide some insight into where patient access and technology might add most value.

4.2. Organization of Care

Online access and services may challenge the established business process and organization of primary care:
  • Computerized medical record systems may need to change to become more patient-friendly. This may, in the long term, enable patients to be more effective in self-management and involved in decision-making.
  • Linking knowledge and information into online services may complement existing care in terms of changing the way clinicians communicate with patients and may indicate new ways to implement appointment reminder systems.
  • Online access and services may change the nature of the patient-clinician interaction.
  • Clinical and practice training may need to change to include effective communication; learning new styles and modes of communication.
  • Clinicians also need to learn how it is possible to provide online access without being overwhelmed by online requests.
  • Examination of users’ acceptance of online services and access, prior to implementation may provide insight into long-term sustainability.
  • The re-design of services may need to be done so that it results in more accessible provision, which lessens current disparities.
  • A business model that enables resources to follow the more efficient provision of additional online services.

4.3. Technological Advancement

Technological advancements need to incorporate the following:
  • How the design of online record access may impact effective adoption and use of these technologies for different patient groups.
  • How health care teams are best trained and assisted to support patients’ use of ever-changing technologies.
  • How new systems can be integrated into the existing technological infrastructure and workflows.
  • Whether these technologies are efficient and cost-effective.
  • Whether the development of new systems can consider patient preferences, as different modes of contact (e.g., email) may alter user adoption and use. Ultimately, what circumstances and what forms of communication work best for patients and practitioners.
  • Finally, although clinicians reported that ensuring privacy was of paramount importance, some patient evidence supported the view that they were willing to trade security for ease of access.
Although there were no reports of harm caused by breaches of privacy, concerns remain. Clinicians’ concerns about privacy might be mitigated by further guideline development. These new guidelines need to include in their scope the development of a common specification, which may reassure clinicians. These guidelines might then make computerized medical records more friendly and accessible to wider patient groups. Consideration also needs to be given to the functionality of systems, thereby enabling patients to have easy, but secure access.
There is a growing consumer demand to access (and possibly edit) data, and currently we have health care systems that are largely unprepared to meet these demands [152,153]. The promise of linking personal records from multiple sources into a readily digestible single online record makes this process potentially more complex [154,155].

4.4. Patient Safety

Online systems have the potential to improve patient safety. Current evidence is limited and needs to be strengthened. Further research needs to focus on:
  • How patients use their access to computerized medical records and how this might enhance safety. To date, little is known about how online access and services are used for specific chronic and long-term conditions and how use will change with an aging population.
  • How data added by patients to their records are used and the potential impact on patient safety.
  • What is the evidence that online access and services increases or decreases patient anxiety, whether it fosters dependency, and what (if anything) needs to be done to mitigate this.
  • The risk that important symptoms (e.g., chest pain) might be missed or not dealt with sufficiently urgently [156].
  • Patients’ preferences over who can view their medical record; and the impact of such limitations on professionals’ ability to provide care and ensure patient safety.

5. Implications for Practice

Implementing online access and services have been shown to provide some opportunities; while there remain challenges for primary care practices, benefits include:
  • Online access may positively impact the patient-physician relationship.
  • Patients may find online services more convenient.
  • Patients may express greater ownership over their medical record and be empowered.
  • The ability to view medical records is no longer the sole provenance of clinicians; this alteration in ownership is likely to enhance relationships, overall.
However, there are also a range of possible negative consequences to offering online access and services. These include:
  • Online access may make it easier for patients to always consult rather than to self-manage their conditions.
  • Online access may result in variations in service utilization, with disparities of access for specific patient groups, and may increase disparities.
  • Clinicians may need to be more careful about how they write records and not raise and share concerns, which form important prompts for colleagues.
  • This is another skill and role for practice teams to acquire.
  • New technologies may necessitate the need for on-going support and training of users, especially if adoption and use is to be sustained.
Further research is needed in four areas: health outcomes, organization of care, technological advancements, and patient safety.
Since our previous publications, technological innovations have advanced and new lessons have been learnt regarding the implementation of online access and services in primary care. New themes include patient added data, the possible use of online access for non-urgent cases, and patients’ preference to control access to specific types of information.

6. Conclusions

Online access offers patients more convenience and may improve patient safety and satisfaction. The USA has had some success in implementing online services. However, this is within a different and clearly defined business model for the delivery of these services. This success, and creation of an appropriate business model, has yet to be replicated in the UK. Explanations of low uptake beyond appointment booking, appointment reminders, and repeat prescription requests by UK patients, and lack of enthusiasm by health care professionals has not helped. This may be grounded in the lack of high quality evidence available. Evidence is needed about how to incorporate online access into quality of care, or how online services might positively impact health outcomes. Regardless, online access is here to stay, and will grow over time.
In the UK there is a need for a changed business model that promotes the use of online services, with the goal that once implemented, this may fundamentally change the business process in primary care, empower patients, and result in safer practice. With careful development, these services may be successfully incorporated into the organization of primary care.

Acknowledgement

The earlier work on which this paper is based was supported by the RCGP, and commissioned by the Department of Health.

Author Contributions

Both F.M. and S.L. contributed equally to the drafting and final version of this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. De Lusignan, S.; Mold, F.; Sheikh, A.; Majeed, A.; Wyatt, J.C.; Quinn, T.; Cavill, M.; Gronlund, T.A.; Franco, C.; Chauhan, U.; et al. Patients’ online access to their electronic health records and linked online services: A systematic interpretative review. Br. Med. J. Open 2014, 4, e006021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mold, F.; de Lusignan, S.; Sheikh, A.; Majeed, A.; Wyatt, J.C.; Quinn, T.; Cavill, M.; Franco, C.; Chauhan, U.; Blakey, H.; 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, e141–e151. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  3. Silvestre, A.L.; Sue, V.M.; Allen, J.Y. If you build it, will they come? The Kaiser Permanente model of online health care. Health Aff. 2009, 28, 334–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Nazi, K.M.; Woods, S.S. MyHealtheVet PHR: A description of users and patient portal use. AMIA Annu. Symp. Proc. 2008, 6, 1182. [Google Scholar]
  5. Rutland, C.M.; Brynhi, H.; Andersen, R.; Bryhni, T. Developing a shared electronic health record for patients and clinicians. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 2008, 136, 57–62. [Google Scholar]
  6. Hannan, A. Providing patients online access to their primary care computerised medical records: A case study of sharing and caring. Inform. Prim. Care 2010, 18, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Sood, H.; Maruthappu, M. CMAJ Blogs. Healthcare for the Future. Comment. 10 July 2015. Available online: http://cmajblogs.com/healthcare-of-the-future/ (accessed on 23 July 2015).
  8. Carman, D.; Britten, N. Confidentiality of medical records the patient’s perspective. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 1995, 45, 485–488. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  9. Mandl, K.D.; Szolovits, P.; Kohane, I.S. Public standards and patients’ control: How to keep electronic medical records accessible but private. Br. Med. J. 2001, 322, 283–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wiljer, D.; Urowitz, S.; Apatu, E.; DeLenardo, C.; Eysenbach, G.; Harth, T.; Pai, H.; Leonard, K.J. Patient accessible EHR: Exploring recommendations for successful implementation strategies. J. Med. Internet Res. 2008, 10, e34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Tiik, M. Rules and access rights of the Estonian integrated e-Health system. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 2010, 156, 245–256. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  12. Greenhalgh, T.; Hinder, S.; Stramer, K.; Bratan, T.; Russell, J. Adoption, non-adoption, and abandonment of a personal electronic health record: Case study of HealthSpace. Br. Med. J. 2010, 341, c5814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Pearce, C.; Bainbridge, M. A personally controlled electronic health record for Australia. J. Am. Med. Inf. Assoc. 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. The Department of Health. The Power of Information: Putting All of Us in Control of the Health and Care Information We Need. p. 91. 2012. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213689/dh_134205.pdf (accessed on 19 September 2013). [Google Scholar]
  15. Morris, L.; Milne, B. Enabling Patients to Access EHR Guidance for Health Professionals. Royal College of General Practitioners, Record Access Collaborative, Version 1.0; September 2010. Available online: http://www.rcgp.org.uk/pdf/Health_Informatics_Enabling_Patient_Access.pdf (accessed on 23 July 2015).
  16. Rafi, I.; Morris, L.; Short, P.; Hassey, A.; Gower, S.; de Lusignan, S. Patient Online: The Road Map. 2013. Available online: http://www.rcgp.org.uk/~/media/Files/CIRC/POA/RCGP-Road-Map.ashx (accessed on 29 December 2013).
  17. Mold, F.; Ellis, B.; de Lusignan, S.; Sheikh, A.; Wyatt, J.C.; Cavill, M.; Michalakidis, G.; Barker, F.; Majeed, A.; Quinn, T.; et al. The provision and impact of online patient access to their electronic health records (EHR) and transactional services on the quality and safety of health care: Systematic review protocol. Inform. Prim. Care 2012, 20, 271–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Bhavnani, V.; Fisher, B.; Winfield, M.; Seed, P. How patients use access to their electronic GP record: A quantitative study. Fam. Pract. 2010, 28, 188–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Goel, M.S.; Brown, T.L.; Williams, A.; Cooper, A.J.; Hasnain-Wynia, R.; Baker, D.W. Patient reported barriers to enrolling in a patient portal. J. Am. Med. Inf. Assoc. 2011, 18 (Suppl. 1), i8–i12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Hassol, A.; Walker, J.M.; Kidder, D.; Rokita, K.; Young, D.; Pierdon, S.; Deitz, D.; Kuck, S.; Ortiz, E. Patient experiences and attitudes about access to a patient electronic health care record and linked web messaging. J. Am. Med. Inf. Assoc. 2004, 11, 505–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Palen, T.E.; Colleen Ross, J.; David, P.; Stanley, X. Association of online patient access to clinicians and medical records with use of clinical services. JAMA 2012, 308, 2012–2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Adamson, S.C.; Bachman, J.W. Pilot study of providing online care in a primary care setting. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2010, 85, 704–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Fung, V.; Ortiz, E.; Huang, J.; Fireman, B.; Miller, R.; Selby, J.V.; Hsu, J. Early experiences with e-health services (1999–2002): Promise, reality, and implications. Med. Care 2006, 44, 491–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Nijland, N.; Cranen, K.; Boer, H.; van Gemert-Pijnen, J.E.W.C.; Seydel, E.R. Patient use and compliance with medical advice delivered by a web-based triage system in primary care. J. Telemed. Telecare 2010, 16, 8–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Padman, R.; Shevchik, G.; Paone, S.; Dolezal, C.; Cervenak, J. eVisit: A pilot study of a new kind of healthcare delivery. Stud. Health Technol. Inf. 2010, 160, 262–266. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ralston, J.D.; Rutter, C.M.; Carrell, D.; Hecht, J.; Rubanowice, D.; Simon, G.E. Patient use of secure electronic messaging within a shared medical record: A cross-sectional study. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2009, 24, 349–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Umefjord, G.; Sandstrom, H.; Malker, H.; Petersson, G. Medical text-based consultations on the Internet: A 4-year study. Int. J. Med. Inf. 2008, 77, 114–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Wakefield, D.S.; Kruse, R.L.; Wakefield, B.J.; Koopman, R.J.; Keplinger, L.E.; Canfield, S.M.; Mehr, D.R. Consistency of patient preferences about a secure internet-based patient communications portal: Contemplating, enrolling, and using. Am. J. Med. Qual. 2012, 27, 494–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Horvath, M.; Levy, J.; L’Engle, P.; Carlson, B.; Ahmad, A.; Ferranti, J. Impact of health portal enrollment with email reminders on adherence to clinic appointments: A pilot study. J. Med. Internet Res. 2011, 13, e41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Haggstrom, D.A.; Saleem, J.J.; Russ, A.L.; Jones, J.; Russell, S.A.; Chumbler, N.R. Lessons learned from usability testing of the VA’s personal health record. J. Am. Med. Inf. Assoc. 2011, 18 (Suppl. 1), i13–i17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Adler, K.G. Web portals in primary care: An evaluation of patient readiness and willingness to pay for online services. J. Med. Internet Res. 2006, 8, e26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Hobbs, J.; Wald, J.; Jagannath, Y.S.; Kittler, A.; Pizziferri, L.; Volk, L.A.; Middleton, B.; Bates, D.W. Opportunities to enhance patient and physician e-mail contact. Int. J. Med. Inf. 2003, 70, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kruse, R.L.; Koopman, R.J.; Wakefield, B.J.; Wakefield, D.S.; Keplinger, L.E.; Canfield, S.M.; Mehr, D.R. Internet use by primary care patients: Where is the digital divide? Fam. Med. 2012, 44, 342–347. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  34. LaVela, S.L.; Schectman, G.; Gering, J.; Locatelli, S.M.; Gawron, A.; Weaver, F.M. Understanding health care communication preferences of veteran primary care users. Patient Educ. Couns. 2012, 88, 420–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Virji, A.; Yarnall, K.S.; Krause, K.M.; Pollak, K.I.; Scannell, M.A.; Gradison, M.; Østbye, T. Use of email in a family practice setting: Opportunities and challenges in patient- and physician-initiated communication. BMC Med. 2006, 4, e18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Zhang, X.; Yu, P.; Yan, J. Patients’ adoption of the e-appointment scheduling service: A case study in primary healthcare. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 2014, 204, 176–181. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  37. Fashner, J.; Drye, S.T. Internet availability and interest in patients at a family medicine residency clinic. Fam. Med. 2011, 43, 117–120. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  38. Goel, M.S.; Brown, T.L.; Williams, A.; Hasnain-Wynia, R.; Thompson, J.A.; Baker, D.W. Disparities in enrollment and use of an electronic patient portal. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2011, 26, 1112–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Delbanco, T.; Walker, J.; Bell, S.K.; Darer, J.D.; Elmore, J.G.; Farag, N.; Feldman, H.J.; Mejilla, R.; Ngo, L.; Ralston, J.D.; et al. Inviting patients to read their doctors’ notes: A quasi-experimental study and a look ahead. Ann. Intern. Med. 2012, 157, 461–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Pyper, C.; Amery, J.; Watson, M.; Crook, C. Access to electronic health records in primary care—A survey of patients’ views. Med. Sci. Monit. 2004, 10, SR17–SR22. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  41. Walker, J.; Leveille, S.G.; Ngo, L.; Vodicka, E.; Darer, J.D.; Dhanireddy, S.; Elmore, J.G.; Feldman, H.J.; Lichtenfeld, M.J.; Oster, N. Inviting patients to read their doctors’ notes: Patients and doctors look ahead: Patient and physician surveys. Ann. Intern. Med. 2011, 155, 811–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Zulman, D.M.; Nazi, K.M.; Turvey, C.L.; Wagner, T.H.; Woods, S.S.; Larry, C. Patient interest in sharing personal health record information. A web-based survey. Ann. Intern. Med. 2011, 155, 805–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Collins, S.A.; Vawdrey, D.K.; Kukafka, R.; Kuperman, G.J. Policies for patient access to clinical data via PHRs: Current state and recommendations. J. Am. Med. Inf. Assoc. 2011, 18 (Suppl. 1), I2–I7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Jackson, S.L.; Mejilla, R.; Darer, J.D.; Oster, N.V.; Ralston, J.D.; Leveille, S.G.; Walker, J.; Delbanco, T.; Elmore, J.G. Patients who share transparent visit notes with others: Characteristics, risks, and benefits. J. Med. Internet Res. 2014, 16, e247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Wald, J.S. Variations in patient portal adoption in four primary care practices. AMIA Ann. Symp. Proc. 2010, 2010, 837–841. [Google Scholar]
  46. Swartz, S.H.; Cowan, T.M.; Batista, I.A. Using claims data to examine patients using practice-based Internet communication: Is there a clinical digital divide? J. Med. Internet Res. 2004, 6, e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Couchman, G.R.; Forjuoh, S.N.; Rascoe, T.G.; Reis, M.D.; Koehler, B.; Walsum, K.L.V. E-mail communications in primary care: What are patients’ expectations for specific test results? Int. J. Med. Inf. 2005, 74, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Hill, J.H.; Burge, S.; Haring, A.; Young, R.A. Residency Research Network of Texas (RRNeT) Investigators. Communication technology access, use, and preferences among primary care patients: From the Residency Research Network of Texas (RRNeT). J. Am. Board Fam. Med. 2012, 25, 625–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Miller, E.A.; West, D.M. Where’s the revolution? Digital technology and health care in the internet age. J. Health Politics Policy Law 2009, 34, 261–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Schnipper, J.L.; Gandhi, T.K.; Wald, J.S.; Grant, R.W.; Poon, E.G.; Volk, L.A.; Businger, A.; Siteman, E.; Buckel, L.; Middleton, B. Design and implementation of a web-based patient portal linked to an electronic health record designed to improve medication safety: The Patient Gateway medications module. Inf. Prim. Care 2008, 16, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Staroselsky, M.; Volk, L.A.; Tsurikova, R.; Newmark, L.P.; Lippincott, M.; Litvak, I.; Kittler, A.; Wang, T.; Wald, J.; Bates, D.W. An effort to improve electronic health record medication list accuracy between visits: Patients’ and physicians’ response. Int. J. Med. Inf. 2008, 77, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Schnipper, J.L.; Gandhi, T.K.; Wald, J.S.; Grant, R.W.; Poon, E.G.; Volk, L.A.; Businger, A.; Williams, D.H.; Siteman, E.; Buckel, L. Effects of an online personal health record on medication accuracy and safety: A cluster-randomized trial. J. Am. Med. Inf. Assoc. 2012, 19, 728–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Weingart, S.N.; Hamrick, H.E.; Tutkus, S.; Carbo, A.; Sands, D.Z.; Tess, A.; Davis, R.B.; Bates, D.W.; Phillips, R.S. Medication safety messages for patients via the web portal: The MedCheck intervention. Int. J. Med. Inf. 2008, 77, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Honeyman, A.; Cox, B.; Fisher, B. Potential impacts of patient access to their electronic care records. Inf. Prim. Care 2005, 13, 55–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Lehnbom, E.C.; McLachlan, A.; Brien, J.A. Qualitative study of Australians’ opinions about personally controlled electronic health records. Stud. Health Technol. Inf. 2012, 178, 105–110. [Google Scholar]
  56. Saparova, D. Motivating, influencing, and persuading patients through personal health records: A scoping review. Perspect. Health Inf. Manag. 2012, 9, 1f. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  57. Baer, D. Patient-physician e-mail communication: The Kaiser Permanente experience. J. Oncol. Pract. 2011, 7, 230–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Jilka, S.R.; Callahan, R.; Sevdalis, N.; Mayer, E.K.; Darzi, A. “Nothing about me without me”: An interpretative review of patient accessible electronic health records. J. Med. Internet Res. 2015, 17, e161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Ross, S.E.; Todd, J.; Moore, L.A.; Beaty, B.L.; Wittevrongel, L.; Lin, C.T. Expectations of patients and physicians regarding patient-accessible medical records. J. Med. Internet Res. 2005, 7, e13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Steinschaden, T.; Petersson, G.; Astrand, B. Physicians’ attitudes towards eprescribing: A comparative web survey in Austria and Sweden. Inf. Prim. Care 2009, 17, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Johnson, A.J.; Frankel, R.M.; Williams, L.S.; Glover, S.; Easterling, D. Patient access to radiology reports: What do physicians think? J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2010, 7, 281–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Liederman, E.M.; Lee, J.C.; Baquero, V.H.; Seites, P.G. Patient-physician web messaging: The impact on message volume and satisfaction. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2005, 20, 52–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Delbanco, T.; Walker, J.; Darer, J.D.; Elmore, J.G.; Feldman, H.J.; Leveille, S.G.; Ralston, J.D.; Ross, S.E.; Vodicka, E.; Weber, V.D. Open notes: Doctors and patients signing on. Ann. Intern. Med. 2010, 153, 121–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Schwartz, P.H.; Caine, K.; Alpert, S.A.; Meslin, E.M.; Carroll, A.E.; Tierney, W.M. Patient preferences in controlling access to their electronic health records: A prospective cohort study in primary care. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2015, 30 (Suppl. 1), S25–S30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Tierney, W.M.; Alpert, S.A.; Byrket, A.; Caine, K.; Leventhal, J.C.; Meslin, E.M.; Schwartz, P.H. Provider responses to patients controlling access to their electronic health records: A prospective cohort study in primary care. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2015, 30 (Suppl. 1), S31–S37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  66. Caine, K.; Hanania, R. Patients want granular privacy control over health information in electronic medical records. J. Am. Med. Inf. Assoc. 2013, 20, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Pyper, C.; Amery, J.; Watson, M.; Crook, C. Patients’ experiences when accessing their on-line electronic patient records in primary care. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 2004, 54, 38–43. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  68. Fisher, B.; Bhavnani, V.; Winfield, M. How patients use access to their full health records: A qualitative study of patients in general practice. J. R. Soc. Med. 2009, 102, 539–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Wagner, P.J.; Howard, S.M.; Bentley, D.R.; Seol, Y.H.; Sodomka, P. Incorporating patient perspectives into the personal health record: Implications for care and caring. Perspect. Health Inf. Manag. 2010, 7, 1e. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  70. Greenhalgh, T.; Hinder, S.; Stramer, K.; Bratan, T.; Russell, J. Adoption, non-adoption, and abandonment of a personal electronic health record: Case study of HealthSpace. Br. Med. J. 2010, 341, c5814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Umefjord, G.; Hamberg, K.; Malker, H.; Petersson, G. The use of an internet-based ask the doctor service involving family physicians: Evaluation by a web survey. Fam. Pract. 2006, 23, 159–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Hanna, L.; May, C.; Fairhurst, K. Non-face-to-face consultations and communications in primary care: The role and perspective of general practice managers in Scotland. Inf. Prim. Care 2011, 19, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Woods, S.S.; Schwartz, E.; Tuepker, A.; Press, N.A.; Nazi, K.M.; Turvey, C.L.; Nichol, W.P. Patient experiences with full electronic access to health records and clinical notes through the My HealtheVet Personal Health Record Pilot: Qualitative study. J. Med. Internet Res. 2013, 15, e65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. London Connect. What Do People Think about Accessing Their Records Online? Online Survey for London Connect: January 2013; London Connect: c/o Health Innovation Network: London, UK.
  75. Hannan, A.; Webber, F. Towards a partnership of trust. Stud. Health Technol. Inf. 2007, 127, 108–116. [Google Scholar]
  76. Herbert, I.; Clinical Computing Special Interest Group (CLICSIG) of the Primary Health Care Specialist Group of the British Computer Society. CLICSIG report: Patients’ access to medical records. Report of the meeting of the Clinical Computing Special Interest Group (CLICSIG) of the Primary Health Care Specialist Group of the British Computer Society, Cranage, Cheshire, UK, 9 December 2006. Inform. Prim. Care 2007, 15, 57–59. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  77. Matheny, M.E.; Gandhi, T.K.; Orav, E.J.; Ladak-Merchant, Z.; Bates, D.W.; Kuperman, G.J.; Poon, E.G. Impact of an automated test results management system on patients’ satisfaction about test result communication. Arch. Intern. Med. 2007, 167, 2233–2239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Tufano, J.T.; Ralston, J.D.; Martin, D.P. Providers’ experience with an organizational redesign initiative to promote patient-centered access: A qualitative study. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2008, 23, 1778–1783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Ye, J.; Rust, G.; Fry-Johnson, Y.; Strothers, H. E-mail in patient-provider communication: A systematic review. Patient Educ. Couns. 2010, 80, 266–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Kerai, P.; Wood, P.; Martin, M. A pilot study on the views of elderly regional Australians of personally controlled electronic health records. Int. J. Med. Inf. 2014, 83, 201–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Pagliari, C.; Shand, T.; Fisher, B. Embedding online patient record access in UK primary care: A survey of stakeholder experiences. JRSM Short Rep. 2012, 3, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Weitzman, E.R.; Kaci, L.; Mandl, K.D. Acceptability of a personally controlled health record in a community-based setting: Implications for policy and design. J. Med. Internet Res. 2009, 11, e14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Neinstein, L. Utilization of electronic communication (E-mail) with patients at university and college health centers. J. Adolesc. Health 2000, 27, 6–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Fairhurst, K.; Sheikh, A. Texting appointment reminders to repeated non-attenders in primary care: Randomised controlled study. Qual. Saf. Health Care 2008, 17, 373–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Wallwiener, M.; Wallwiener, C.W.; Kansy, J.K.; Seeger, H.; Rajab, T.K. Impact of electronic messaging on the patient-physician interaction. J. Telemed. Telecare 2009, 15, 243–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Kummervold, P.E.; Trondsen, M.; Andreassen, H.; Gammon, D.; Hjortdahl, P. Patient-physician interaction over the internet. Tidsskr. Norske Laegeforening 2004, 124, 2633–2636. [Google Scholar]
  87. Tang, P.C.; Black, W.; Young, C.Y. Proposed criteria for reimbursing eVisits: Content analysis of secure patient messages in a personal health record system. Ann. Symp. Proc. AMIA 2006, 2006, 764–768. [Google Scholar]
  88. Houston, T.K.; Sands, D.Z.; Nash, B.R.; Ford, D.E. Experiences of physicians who frequently use E-mail with patients. Health Commun. 2003, 15, 515–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Anand, S.G.; Feldman, M.J.; Geller, D.S.; Bisbee, A.; Bauchner, H. A content analysis of e-mail communication between primary care providers and parents. Pediatrics 2005, 115, 1283–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. The Conference Board of Canada. Valuing Time Saved: Assessing the Impact of Patient Time Saved from the Adoption of Consumer Health Solutions, Toronto, Canada; 2012.
  91. Walters, B.; Barnard, D.; Paris, S. Patient portals and E-Visits. J. Ambul. Care Manag. 2006, 29, 222–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Caffery, L.J.; Smith, A.C. A literature review of email-based telemedicine. Stud. Health Technol. Inf. 2010, 161, 20–34. [Google Scholar]
  93. Couchman, G.R.; Forjuoh, S.N.; Rascoe, T.G. E-mail communications in family practice: What do patients expect? J. Fam. Pract. 2001, 50, 414–418. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  94. White, C.B.; Moyer, C.A.; Stern, D.T.; Katz, S.J. A content analysis of e-mail communication between patients and their providers: Patients get the message. J. Am. Med. Inf. Assoc. 2004, 11, 260–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Liederman, E.M.; Morefield, C.S. Web messaging: A new tool for patient-physician communication. J. Am. Med. Inf. Assoc. 2003, 10, 260–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Haun, J.N.; Lind, J.D.; Shimada, S.L.; Martin, T.L.; Gosline, R.M.; Antinori, N.; Stewart, M.; Simon, S.R. Evaluating user experiences of the secure messaging tool on the Veterans Affairs’ patient portal system. J. Med. Internet Res. 2014, 16, e75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Lin, C.T.; Wittevrongel, L.; Moore, L.; Beaty, B.L.; Ross, S.E. An internet-based patient-provider communication system: Randomized controlled trial. J. Med. Internet Res. 2005, 7, e47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Smith, K.D.; Merchen, E.; Turner, C.D.; Vaught, C.; Nagykaldi, Z.; Aspy, C.; Mold, J. Patient-physician e-mail communication revisited a decade later: An OKPRN study. J. Okla. State Med. Assoc. 2009, 102, 291–293. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  99. Moyer, C.A.; Stern, D.T.; Dobias, K.S.; Cox, D.T.; Katz, S.J. Bridging the electronic divide: Patient and provider perspectives on e-mail communication in primary care. Am. J. Manag. Care 2002, 8, 427–433. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  100. Katz, S.J.; Nissan, N.; Moyer, C.A. Crossing the digital divide: Evaluating online communication between patients and their providers. Am. J. Manag. Care 2004, 10, 593–598. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  101. Nagykaldi, Z.; Aspy, C.B.; Chou, A.; Mold, J.W. Impact of a Wellness Portal on the delivery of patient-centered preventive care. J. Am. Board Fam. Med. 2012, 25, 158–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Tjora, A.; Tran, T.; Faxvaag, A. Privacy vs. usability: A qualitative exploration of patients’ experiences with secure internet communication with their general practitioner. J. Med. Internet Res. 2005, 7, e15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Roter, D.L.; Larson, S.; Sands, D.Z.; Ford, D.E.; Houston, T. Can E-mail messages between patients and physicians be patient-centered? Health Commun. 2008, 23, 80–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Andreassen, H.K.; Trondsen, M.; Kummervold, P.E.; Gammon, D.; Hjortdahl, P. Patients who use e-mediated communication with their doctor: New constructions of trust in the patient-doctor relationship. Qual. Health Res. 2006, 16, 238–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Grover, F., Jr.; Wu, H.D.; Blanford, C.; Holcomb, S.; Tidler, D. Computer-using patients want Internet services from family physicians. J. Fam. Pract. 2002, 51, 570–572. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  106. Albert, S.M.; Shevchik, G.J.; Paone, S.; Martich, G.D. Internet-based medical visit and diagnosis for common medical problems: Experience of first user cohort. Telemed. E-Health 2011, 17, 304–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Car, J.; Sheikh, A. Email consultations in health care: 1—Scope and effectiveness. Br. Med. J. 2004, 329, 435–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Neville, R.G.; Marsden, W.; McCowan, C.; Pagliari, C.; Mullen, H.; Fannin, A. Email consultations in general practice. Inform. Prim. Care 2004, 12, 207–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Car, J.; Sheikh, A. Email consultations in health care: 2—Acceptability and safe application. Br. Med. J. 2004, 329, 439–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Mold, F.; Lai, Y.L.; Hendy, J.; de Lusignan, S. A systematic review to investigate the usefulness of remote consultation systems for patients and professionals in primary care: Existing challenges and future health care in the UK. PROSPERO 2015:CRD42015019152. Available online: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42015019152 (accessed on 2 April 2015).
  111. Leveille, S.G.; Walker, J.; Ralston, J.D.; Ross, S.E.; Elmore, J.G.; Delbanco, T. Evaluating the impact of patients’ online access to doctors’ visit notes: Designing and executing the OpenNotes project. BMC Med. Inf. Decis. Mak. 2012, 12, e32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Wald, J.S.; Middleton, B.; Bloom, A.; Walmsley, D.; Gleason, M.; Nelson, E.; Li, Q.; Epstein, M.; Volk, L.; Bates, D.W. A patient-controlled journal for an electronic medical record: Issues and challenges. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 2004, 107 Pt 2, 1166–1170. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  113. Wald, J.S.; Pedraza, L.A.; Reilly, C.A.; Murphy, M.E.; Kuperman, G.J. Requirements development for a patient computing system. Proc AMIA Symp. 2001, 731–735. [Google Scholar]
  114. Johnson, L.W.; Garrido, T.; Christensen, K.; Handley, M. Successful practices in the use of secure e-mail. Perm. J. 2014, 18, 50–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Zhou, Y.Y.; Garrido, T.; Chin, H.L.; Wiesenthal, A.M.; Liang, L.L. Patient access to an electronic health record with secure messaging: Impact on primary care utilization. Am. J. Manag. Care 2007, 13, 418–424. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  116. Chew-Graham, C.A.; Alexander, H.; Rogers, A. The exceptional potential of the Internet? Perceptions about the management of another set of communications: A qualitative study. Prim. Health Care Res. Dev. 2005, 6, 311–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Katz, S.J.; Moyer, C.A.; Cox, D.T.; Stern, D.T. Effect of a triage-based e-mail system on clinic resource use and patient and physician satisfaction in primary care: A randomized controlled trial. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2003, 18, 736–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Byrne J, M.; Elliott, S.; Firek, A. Initial Experience with patient-clinician secure messaging at a VA medical center. J. Am. Med. Inf. Assoc. 2009, 16, 267–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Chen, C.; Garrido, T.; Chock, D.; Okawa, G.; Liang, L. The Kaiser Permanente electronic health record: Transforming and streamlining modalities of care. Health Aff. 2009, 28, 323–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Bergmo, T.S.; Kummervold, P.E.; Gammon, D.; Dahl, L.B. Electronic patient-provider communication: Will it offset office visits and telephone consultations in primary care? Int. J. Med. Inf. 2005, 74, 705–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Fitton, C.; Fitton, R.; Hannan, A.; Fisher, B.; Morgan, L.; Halsall, D. The impact of patient record access on appointments and telephone calls in two English general practices: A population-based study. Lond. J. Prim. Care Abingdon 2014, 6, 8–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. North, F.; Crane, S.J.; Chaudhry, R.; Ebbert, J.O.; Ytterberg, K.; Tulledge-Scheitel, S.M.; Stroebel, R.J. Impact of patient portal secure messages and electronic visits on adult primary care office visits. Telemed. E-Health 2014, 20, 192–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Patt, M.R.; Houston, T.K.; Jenckes, M.W.; Sands, D.Z.; Ford, D.E. Doctors who are using E-mail with their patients: A qualitative exploration. J. Med. Internet Res. 2003, 5, e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Neville, R.G.; Marsden, W.; McCowan, C.; Pagliari, C.; Mullen, H.; Fannin, A. A survey of GP attitudes to and experiences of email consultations. Inf. Prim. Care 2004, 12, 201–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Brooks, R.G.; Menachemi, N. Physicians’ use of email with patients: Factors influencing electronic communication and adherence to best practices. J. Med. Internet Res. 2006, 8, e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Goodyear-Smith, F.; Wearn, A.; Everts, H.; Huggard, P.; Halliwell, J. Pandora’s electronic box: GPs reflect upon email communication with their patients. Inf. Prim. Care 2005, 13, 195–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Peleg, R.; Avdalimov, A.; Freud, T. Providing cell phone numbers and email addresses to Patients: The physician’s perspective. BMC Res. Notes 2011, 4, e76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Hayes, G. The NHS information technology (IT) and social care review 2009: A synopsis. Inf. Prim. Care 2010, 18, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Hart, A.; Henwood, F.; Wyatt, S. The role of the internet in patient-practitioner relationships: Findings from a qualitative research study. J. Med. Internet Res. 2004, 6, e36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Finkelstein, S.R.; Liu, N.; Jani, B.; Rosenthal, D.; Poghosyan, L. Appointment reminder systems and patient preferences: Patient technology usage and familiarity with other service providers as predictive variables. Health Inf. J. 2013, 19, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Vodicka, E.; Mejilla, R.; Leveille, S.G.; Ralston, J.D.; Darer, J.D.; Delbanco, T.; Walker, J.; Elmore, J.G. Online access to doctors’ notes: Patient concerns about privacy. J. Med. Internet Res. 2013, 15, e208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Allaert, F.A.; Le Teuff, G.; Quantin, C.; Barber, B. The legal acknowledgement of the electronic signature: A key for a secure direct access of patients to their computerised medical record. Int. J. Med. Inf. 2004, 73, 239–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Komives, E.M. Clinician-patient E-mail communication: Challenges for reimbursement. N. C. Med. J. 2005, 66, 238–240. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  134. Rutland, J.; Marie, C.; Rutland, B. A system for telephone and secure email consultations, with automatic billing. J. Telemed. Telecare 2004, 10 (Suppl. 1), 88–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Bergmo, T.S.; Wangberg, S.C. Patients’ willingness to pay for electronic communication with their general practitioner. Eur. J. Health Econ. 2007, 8, 105–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Medical Protection Society. Online Medical Records a “Pandora”s Box’—MPS Survey Reveals Security Fears; London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  137. Kittler, A.F.; Wald, J.S.; Volk, L.A.; Pizziferri, L.; Jagannath, Y.; Harris, C.; Lippincott, M.; Yu, T.; Hobbs, J.; Bates, D.W. The role of primary care non-physician clinic staff in e-mail communication with patients. Int. J. Med. Inf. 2004, 73, 333–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. London Connect. Patients’ and Commissioners’ Views of Personalised Health Information; Rapid Review of Key Research: September 2012; London Connect: c/o Health Innovation Network: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  139. Flynn, D.; Gregory, P.; Makki, H.; Gabbay, M. Expectations and experiences of eHealth in primary care: A qualitative practice-based investigation. Int. J. Med. Inf. 2009, 78, 588–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Neville, R.G.; Reed, C.; Boswell, B.; Sergeant, P.; Sullivan, T.; Sullivan, F.M. Early experience of the use of short message service (SMS) technology in routine clinical care. Inf. Prim. Care 2008, 16, 203–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Williams, P.A.H. When trust defies common security sense. Health Inf. J. 2008, 14, 211–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Nijland, N.; van Gemert-Pijnen, J.; Boer, H.; Steehouder, M.F.; Seydel, E.R. Evaluation of internet-based technology for supporting self-care: Problems encountered by patients and caregivers when using self-care applications. J. Med. Internet Res. 2008, 10, e13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Huba, N.; Zhang, Y. Designing patient-centered personal health records (PHRs: Health care professionals’ perspective on patient-generated data. J. Med. Syst. 2012, 36, 3893–3905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Mynors, G.; Newsom-Davis, E. Patient Information Forum, Guide to health records access. London: Patient Information Forum. 2012. Available online: http://www.pifonline.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/pif-phr-guide-web_final_Oct12.pdf (accessed on 28 November 2013).
  145. Hwang, H.G.; Han, H.E.; Kuo, K.M.; Liu, C.F. The differing privacy concerns regarding exchanging electronic medical records of internet users in Taiwan. J. Med. Syst. 2012, 36, 3783–3793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Taha, J.; Czaja, S.J.; Sharit, J.; Morrow, D.G. Factors affecting usage of a personal health record (PHR) to manage health. Psychol. Aging 2013, 28, 1124–1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Krist, A.H.; Woolf, S.H.; Bello, G.A.; Sabo, R.T.; Longo, D.R.; Kashiri, P.; Etz, R.S.; Loomis, J.; Rothemich, S.F.; Peele, J.E.; et al. Engaging primary care patients to use a patient-centered personal health record. Ann. Fam. Med. 2014, 12, 418–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  148. North, F.; Hanna, B.K.; Crane, S.J.; Smith, S.A.; Tulledge-Scheitel, S.M.; Stroebel, R.J. Patient portal doldrums: Does an exam room promotional video during an office visit increase patient portalregistrations and portal use? J. Am. Med. Inf. Assoc. 2011, 18 (Suppl. 1), i24–i27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Sciamanna, C.N.; Rogers, M.L.; Shenassa, E.D.; Houston, T.K. Patient access to U.S. physicians who conduct internet or e-mail consults. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2007, 22, 378–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  150. Szilagyi, P.G.; Adams, W.G. Text messaging: A new tool for improving preventive services. JAMA J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2012, 307, 1748–1749. [Google Scholar]
  151. Gaster, B.; Knight, C.L.; DeWitt, D.E.; Sheffield, J.V.L.; Assefi, N.P.; Buchwald, D. Physicians’ use of and attitudes toward electronic mail for patient communication. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2003, 18, 385–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  152. Beard, L.; Schein, R.; Morra, D.; Wilson, K.; Keelan, J. The challenges in making EHR accessible to patients. J. Am. Med. Inf. Assoc. 2012, 19, 116–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Cross, M. BMA warns against letting patients have access to their electronic records. Br. Med. J. 2011, 342, d206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Quantin, C.; Fassa, M.; Coatrieux, G.; Breton, V.; Boire, J.Y.; Allaert, F.A. Giving patients secure “Google-like” access to their medical record. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 2008, 137, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  155. Gardiner, R. The transition from “informed patient” care to “patient informed” care. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 2008, 137, 241–256. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  156. North, F.; Crane, S.J.; Stroebel, R.J.; Cha, S.S.; Edell, E.S.; Tulledge-Scheitel, S.M. Patient-generated secure messages and eVisits on a patient portal: Are patients at risk? J. Am. Med. Inf. Assoc. 2013, 20, 1143–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mold, F.; De Lusignan, S. Patients’ Online Access to Their Primary Care Electronic Health Records and Linked Online Services: Implications for Research and Practice. J. Pers. Med. 2015, 5, 452-469. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm5040452

AMA Style

Mold F, De Lusignan S. Patients’ Online Access to Their Primary Care Electronic Health Records and Linked Online Services: Implications for Research and Practice. Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2015; 5(4):452-469. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm5040452

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mold, Freda, and Simon De Lusignan. 2015. "Patients’ Online Access to Their Primary Care Electronic Health Records and Linked Online Services: Implications for Research and Practice" Journal of Personalized Medicine 5, no. 4: 452-469. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm5040452

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop