Records. Rights of access

J Naish,M Barr

Abstract:From 1 November 1991 clients will have right of access to their health records. Health visitor journal outlines the provisions of the Access to Health Records Act 1990; HVA professional officer Jane Naish examines the implications for health visitor and school nurse practice, and solicitor Melanie Barr describes the legal context.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The effect of the proposed national data protection regime on the health sector in Australia

M Jackson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/ah970001

Abstract:The Commonwealth Government and a number of State governments are proposing to introduce legislation based on the Information Privacy Principles contained in the Privacy Act 1988 (Cwlth). This will allow individuals access to any personal information held on them by an organisation or person, including private practitioners, private health facilities and State government agencies. This article discusses this proposed legislation and its implications for the health sector. Although in the public health area patients can already gain access to their medical records through the use of the various Freedom of Information Acts and, in the case of Commonwealth government agencies, the Privacy Act 1988 (Cwlth), the proposed data protection legislation will provide more than access rights to individuals. The effect of the proposed legislation on the private sector, where no obligation exists on the part of the doctor to grant a patient access to his or her records, will be substantial.
Patients' experiences when accessing their on-line electronic patient records in primary care

Cecilia Pyper,Justin Amery,Marion Watson,Claire Crook

Abstract:Background: Patient access to on-line primary care electronic patient records is being developed nationally. Knowledge of what happens when patients access their electronic records is poor. Aim: To enable 100 patients to access their electronic records for the first time to elicit patients' views and to understand their requirements. Design of study: In-depth interviews using semi-structured questionnaires as patients accessed their electronic records, plus a series of focus groups. Setting: Secure facilities for patients to view their primary care records privately. Method: One hundred patients from a randomised group viewed their on-line electronic records for the first time. The questionnaire and focus groups addressed patients' views on the following topics: ease of use; confidentiality and security; consent to access; accuracy; printing records; expectations regarding content; exploitation of electronic records; receiving new information and bad news. Results: Most patients found the computer technology used acceptable. The majority found viewing their record useful and understood most of the content, although medical terms and abbreviations required explanation. Patients were concerned about security and confidentiality, including potential exploitation of records. They wanted the facility to give informed consent regarding access and use of data. Many found errors, although most were not medically significant. Many expected more detail and more information. Patients wanted to add personal information. Conclusion: Patients have strong views on what they find acceptable regarding access to electronic records. Working in partnership with patients to develop systems is essential to their success. Further work is required to address legal and ethical issues of electronic records and to evaluate their impact on patients, health professionals and service provision.
Patients Know Best: access to medical records is key

Mohammad Al-Ubaydli

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q1753

2024-08-18

BMJ

Abstract:Coulter and colleagues call for patients to have access to their medical records.1 Patients Know Best's software is the only one releasing hospital test results into England's NHS App (and soon the NHS Wales App). Every month, we release 20 million test results from hospitals, covering 25% of the UK.Most of our patients see their results immediately, often before their doctor knows they're back. This contrasts with England's general practitioners, who release data at their discretion. We work with each hospital to identify results that require a delay, such as biopsy results, radiology reports, and HIV diagnoses, which are automatically released after a set period. If a patient has cancer, and their doctor hasn't informed them after four weeks, our software will notify them.GPs' upcoming industrial action includes restricting access to medical records. Many GPs recently shut down the ability of other providers to write into the record using GP...

medicine, general & internal
Public Supports Commercial Access to Patient Records when Public Benefit is Clear.

Nigel Hawkes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i1414

2016-01-01

BMJ

Abstract:Most people are willing to have their health records used by commercial organisations, as long as there is a clear public benefit and it is not solely for private profit. The conclusions emerged from one of the most detailed studies yet into what the public thinks about the use of its data by commercial organisations.1 The Wellcome Trust commissioned Ipsos MORI to carry out the research, which included workshops and a poll of 2000 people. The aim was to inform and influence a review being carried out for the health secretary for England, Jeremy Hunt, by Fiona Caldicott, the national data guardian. The Caldicott review, which is expected to be published soon, will include …
Freedom of Information, Right to Access Information, Open Data: Who is at the Table?

Elizabeth Shepherd

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00358533.2015.1112101

2015-11-02

The Round Table

Abstract:Many national governments have adopted the idea of the ‘right to access information’ (RTI) or ‘freedom of information’ (FOI) as an essential element of the rights of citizens to freedom of opinion and expression, human rights, trust in public discourse and transparent, accountable and open government. Over 100 countries worldwide have introduced access to information legislation: 50+ in Europe; a dozen in Africa; 20 in the Americas and Caribbean; more than 15 in Asia and the Pacific; and two in the Middle East (Banisar, 2014). This article will provide an overview of access to information legislation and focus on the UK Freedom of Information Act 2000 as a case example. It will discuss the impact of the UK FOI Act on public authorities, with particular attention to records management implications, drawing on research undertaken by University College London. In the final section, it will reflect on relationships between access to information and open government data. If governments are moving to more openness, what implications might this have for those charged with implementing FOI and RTI policies, including for records management professionals?
The Illusion of Health Privacy in Obstetrics-Gynecology

M. Rothstein

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/GRF.0000000000000771

2023-01-03

Abstract:Many health professionals and patients erroneously believe that professional ethics and laws protect the privacy of sensitive records in obstetrics-gynecology. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule permits disclosure of health records without authorization for public health, law enforcement, and other reasons. Individuals also may be compelled to authorize the release of their records in applying for employment, life insurance, or government benefits. Disclosure of sensitive health information has increased because of comprehensive electronic health records, patient-developed data from mobile devices, consolidation of medical practices, and law enforcement interest in reproductive health records attributable to the change in abortion laws.

Medicine,Law
American Health Information Management Association. Position statement. Issue: protecting patient information after a closure.

Abstract:Patients trust their healthcare providers to respect their privacy, maintain the confidentiality of their health information, and assure its availability for their continuing care. When healthcare facilities close or medical practices dissolve, providers must be concerned with the protection of health information. Procedures for disposition of patient records must take several factors into consideration, including: state laws regarding record retention and statutes of limitation; state licensing standards; Medicare requirements; federal laws governing treatment for alcohol and drug abuse (if applicable); guidelines issued by professional organizations; and the needs and wishes of patients. In some states, a state archive or health department will store health records from closed facilities. Generally, state regulations recommend records be transferred to another healthcare provider. If a healthcare facility or medical practice is sold to another healthcare provider, patient records may be considered assets and included in the sale of the property. If a facility closes or a practice dissolves without a sale, records should be transferred to another healthcare provider which agrees to accept the responsibility. If this is not feasible, records may be archived with a reputable commercial storage firm. Before records are transferred to an archive or another provider, patients should be notified, if possible, and given an opportunity to obtain copies of their health information. This may be done by publishing a series of notices in the local newspaper. Regardless of the archival method used, the provider must assure that the integrity and confidentiality of the patient health records will be maintained and that the records are accessible to the patient and other legitimate users.

Medicine,Law
Privacy, confidentiality and abortion statistics: a question of public interest?

Jean V McHale,June Jones

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.041186

2011-06-27

Journal of Medical Ethics

Abstract:The precise nature and scope of healthcare confidentiality has long been the subject of debate. While the obligation of confidentiality is integral to professional ethical codes and is also safeguarded under English law through the equitable remedy of breach of confidence, underpinned by the right to privacy enshrined in Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, it has never been regarded as absolute. But when can and should personal information be made available for statistical and research purposes and what if the information in question is highly sensitive information, such as that relating to the termination of pregnancy after 24 weeks? This article explores the case of In the Matter of an Appeal to the Information Tribunal under section 57 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, concerning the decision of the Department of Health to withhold some statistical data from the publication of its annual abortion statistics. The specific data being withheld concerned the termination for serious fetal handicap under section 1(1)d of the Abortion Act 1967. The paper explores the implications of this case, which relate both to the nature and scope of personal privacy. It suggests that lessons can be drawn from this case about public interest and use of statistical information and also about general policy issues concerning the legal regulation of confidentiality and privacy in the future.

ethics,medical ethics,social issues,social sciences, biomedical
Experiences and opinions of general practitioners with patient online record access: an online survey in England

Blease,C. R.,Kharko,A.,Dong,Z.,Jones,R. B.,Davidge,G.,Hagglund,M.,Turner,A.,DesRoches,C.,McMillan,B.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-078158

IF: 3.006

2024-02-02

BMJ Open

Abstract: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.

medicine, general & internal
Open AI meets open notes: surveillance capitalism, patient privacy and online record access

Charlotte Blease

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2023-109574

2024-01-23

Abstract:Patient online record access (ORA) is spreading worldwide, and in some countries, including Sweden, and the USA, access is advanced with patients obtaining rapid access to their full records. In the UK context, from 31 October 2023 as part of the new NHS England general practitioner (GP) contract it will be mandatory for GPs to offer ORA to patients aged 16 and older. Patients report many benefits from reading their clinical records including feeling more empowered, better understanding and remembering their treatment plan, and greater awareness about medications including possible adverse effects. However, a variety of indirect evidence suggests these benefits are unlikely to accrue without supplementation from internet-based resources. Using such routes to augment interpretation of the data and notes housed in electronic health records, however, comes with trade-offs in terms of exposing sensitive patient information to internet corporations. Furthermore, increased work burdens on clinicians, including the unique demands of ORA, combined with the easy availability and capability of a new generation of large language model (LLM)-powered chatbots, create a perfect collision course for exposing sensitive patient information to private tech companies. This paper surveys how ORA intersects with internet associated privacy risks and offers a variety of multilevel suggestions for how these risks might be better mitigated.
Perspectives on the Mental Health Act 2014 (Vic)

Hannah Cross,Ilan Rauchberger,Jayashri Kulkarni

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1039856214555342

Abstract:Objective: This article will consider the potential impact of Victoria's new Mental Health Act 2014 (Vic) from the perspectives of consumers, careers and members of the treating team. This article will examine how some of the more drastic legal reforms will impact clinical processes, procedures and decision making. Conclusions: The new Act takes significant steps towards empowering consumers. However, its practical application will take some time to appraise. Only time will reveal how the Mental Health Tribunal handles its newfound powers, whether consumers will benefit from a more collaborative approach to clinical decision making and ultimately whether the Act will empower consumers.
'I was going into it blind' : Nearest Relatives, legal literacy, and the Mental Health Act 1983

Judy Laing,Jeremy Dixon,Kevin Stone

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2024.101981

IF: 2.479

2024-03-22

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry

Abstract:Eligible relatives are given rights and powers in the compulsory treatment of people with mental health problems in several international jurisdictions, including within England and Wales. However, little attention has been given to whether relatives feel legally literate or competent to fulfil such roles. This article examines this issue through focussing on the experiences of Nearest Relatives, who are given rights and powers during Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) assessments for compulsory admission in England and Wales. Interviews with nineteen Nearest Relatives in England were conducted and were thematically analysed. Three themes were identified. First, NRs spoke about their awareness and knowledge of the role. They predominantly reported negative experiences in which they received no or little information. They also reported that professionals assumed they possessed legal knowledge, and their legal knowledge was largely self-taught. Secondly, NRs reported uncertainty about their own rights and powers, noting the role lacked status or informational or emotional support. Third, NRs highlighted areas for legal reform, stating that the NR role was important, but required specialist support systems for NRs. The findings of this study indicate greater attention needs to be given by law and policy makers to support relatives' understanding of their rights and powers under the MHA, if the NR role is to be effective in helping to safeguard patient rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. These include the right in Article 5 not to be arbitrarily deprived of one's liberty and the right to a private and family life in Article 8. Legislators also need to take account of these factors when considering proposals to reform mental health law in England and Wales.

psychiatry,law
When Parents Request Nondisclosure: Rights of Adolescents to Access Their Health Information and Implications of the 21st Century Cures Act Final Rule

Edward McArdle,Karen L Teelin,Adrienne Borschuk,Amy E Caruso Brown

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/729413

Abstract:AbstractDespite broad ethical consensus supporting developmentally appropriate disclosure of health information to older children and adolescents, cases in which parents and caregivers request nondisclosure continue to pose moral dilemmas for clinicians. State laws vary considerably regarding adolescents' rights to autonomy, privacy, and confidentiality, with many states not specifically addressing adolescents' right to their own healthcare information. The requirements of the 21st Century Cures Act have raised important ethical concerns for pediatricians and adolescent healthcare professionals regarding the protection of adolescent privacy and confidentiality, given requirements that chart notes and results be made readily available to patients via electronic portals. Less addressed have been the implications of the act for adolescents' access to their health information, since many healthcare systems' electronic portals are available to patients beginning at age 12, sometimes requiring that the patients themselves authorize their parents' access to the same information. In this article, we present a challenging case of protracted disagreement about an adolescent's right to honest information regarding his devastating prognosis. We then review the legal framework governing adolescents' rights to their own healthcare information, the limitations of ethics consultation to resolve such disputes, and the potential for the Cures Act's impact on electronic medical record systems to provide one form of resolution. We conclude that although parents in cases like the one presented here have the legal right to consent to medical treatment on their children's behalf, they do not have a corresponding right to direct the withholding of medical information from the patient.
Icelandic. Decision of the Supreme Court on the protection of privacy with regard to the processing of Health Sector Databases. Attorney at Law vs The State of Iceland

Abstract:Mr. R appealed for a decision by the Court to overturn the refusal of the Medical Director of Health to her request that health information in medical records pertaining to herdeceased father should not be entered into the Health Sector Database. Furthermore, she called for recognition of her right to prohibit the transfer of such information into a database. Article 8 of Act No 139/1998 on a Health Sector Database provides for the right of patients to refuse permission, by notification to the Medical Director of Health, for information concerning them to be entered into the Health Sector Database. The Court concluded that R could not exercise this right acting as a substitute of her deceased father, but it was recognised that she might, on the basis of her right to protection of privacy, have an interest in preventing the transfer of health data concerning her father into the database, as information could be inferred from such data relating to the hereditary characteristics of her father which might also apply to herself. It was revealed in the course of proceedings that extensive information concerning people's health is entered into medical records, e.g. medical treatment, life-style and social conditions, employment and family circumstances, together with a detailed identification of the person that the information concerns. It was recognised as unequivocal that the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 71 of the Constitution applied to such information and guaranteed to every person the right to protection of privacy in this respect. The Court concluded that the opinion of the District Court, which, inter alia, was based on the opinion of an assessor, to the effect that so-called one-way encryption could be carried out in such a secure manner that it would be virtually impossible to read the encrypted data, had not been refuted. It was noted, however, that Act No. 139/1998 provides no details as to what information from medical records is required to be encrypted in this manner prior to transfer into the database or whether certain information contained in the medical records will not be transferred into the database. The documents of the case indicate that only the identity number of the patient would be encrypted in the database, and that names, both those of the patient and his relatives, as well as the precise address, would be omitted. It is obvious that information on these items is not the only information appearing in the medical records which could, in certain cases, unequivocally identify the person concerned. Act No. 139/1998 also provides for authorisation to the licensee to process information from the medical records transferred into the database. The Act stipulates that certain specified public entities must approve procedures and process methods and monitor all queries and processing of information in the database. However, there is no clear definition of what type of queries will be directed to the database or in what form the replies to such queries will appear. The Court concluded that even though individual provisions of Act No 139/1998 repeatedly stipulate that health information in the Health Sector Database should be non-personally identifiable, it is far from adequately ensured under statutory law that this stated objective will be achieved. In light of the obligations imposed on the legislature by Paragraph 1 of Article 71 of the Constitution, the Court concluded that various forms of monitoring of the creation and, operation of the database are no substitute in this respect without foundation in definite statutory norms. In light of these circumstances, and taking into account the principles of Icelandic law concerning the confidentiality and protection of privacy, the Court concluded that the right of R in this matter must be recognised, and her court claims, therefore, upheld.
AIDS and professional secrecy in the United States

H Jayawardena

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002580249603600108

Abstract:Objective: To create a legal awareness of AIDS patients' right to privacy among the medical profession. Discussion and recommendations: Doctors should recognize confidentiality as a patient's right, since in most countries the AIDS patient is practically considered a person who is going through a punishment, having no legal rights, rather than a patient suffering from a grave illness. Originally the common law did not recognize the concept of professional secrecy as a right of the patient. It was only regarded as an ethical duty not actionable in court. But with the eruption of diseases such as AIDS, statutes requiring written authorization for the release of confidential information were enacted. A problem with our hospital records is that they are freely available to almost all the staff in the hospitals and sometimes even to outsiders. In the case of AIDS at least, strict measures should be taken to enforce secrecy in relation to all disease-related information such as sexual history, HIV status and CD4 cell counts. The duty to keep medical information confidential is not absolute. An overriding duty towards society, occurs when the benefits of disclosure outweigh its harm. This utopian argument is even more convincing when an HIV-positive person is acting irresponsibly, engaging in risky behaviour without warning the partner. All persons who have a compelling interest, such as sexual partners, needle sharers, medical and nursing personnel, should be provided with this information. It should also extend to mortuary attendants when the patient dies. A person having a STD has a legal duty to take precautions against transmission. In Berner v. Caldwell (543 So. 2d. 686), the US court held that one who knows or should reasonably know that he has genital herpes is under a duty to abstain from sex or warn others before risky contact. As doctors we should familiarize ourselves now with the concepts and laws regarding patients' rights, without waiting until a malpractice crisis develops to correct ourselves.
Changes To Sharing Medical Records Could Damage Research, Report Warns

Nigel Hawkes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k2371

2018-01-01

Abstract:From 25 May patients in the UK have a simpler way of choosing not to share their patient records, a change that could damage health related research, a report from the King’s Fund warns.1The change has been introduced at the same time as the General Data Protection Regulation, which has been discussed widely as organisations email people on their lists to seek their permission to continue doing so.But the change to the NHS opt-out has been less widely publicised, and no special effort has been made to convince patients that their data will be safe and that using the data could improve care and the way the NHS is run.The …
Experiences from patients in mental healthcare accessing their electronic health records: results from a cross-national survey in Estonia, Finland, Norway, and Sweden

A.J. Fagerlund,Annika Bärkås,A. Kharko,C.R. Blease,J. Hagström,I. Huvila,I. Hörhammer,B. Kane,E. Kristiansen,S. Kujala,J. Moll,H. Rexhepi,I. Scandurra,S. Simola,H. Soone,B. Wang,R.M. Åhlfeldt,M. Hägglund,M.A. Johansen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-024-05916-8

IF: 4.144

2024-07-02

BMC Psychiatry

Abstract:Abstract Background Patients’ online record access (ORA) enables patients to read and use their health data through online digital solutions. One such solution, patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) have been implemented in Estonia, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. While accumulated research has pointed to many potential benefits of ORA, its application in mental healthcare (MHC) continues to be contested. The present study aimed to describe MHC users’ overall experiences with national PAEHR services. Methods The study analysed the MHC-part of the NORDeHEALTH 2022 Patient Survey, a large-scale multi-country survey. The survey consisted of 45 questions, including demographic variables and questions related to users’ experiences with ORA. We focused on the questions concerning positive experiences (benefits), negative experiences (errors, omissions, offence), and breaches of security and privacy. Participants were included in this analysis if they reported receiving mental healthcare within the past two years. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise data, and percentages were calculated on available data. Results 6,157 respondents were included. In line with previous research, almost half (45%) reported very positive experiences with ORA. A majority in each country also reported improved trust (at least 69%) and communication (at least 71%) with healthcare providers. One-third (29.5%) reported very negative experiences with ORA. In total, half of the respondents (47.9%) found errors and a third (35.5%) found omissions in their medical documentation. One-third (34.8%) of all respondents also reported being offended by the content. When errors or omissions were identified, about half (46.5%) reported that they took no action. There seems to be differences in how patients experience errors, omissions, and missing information between the countries. A small proportion reported instances where family or others demanded access to their records (3.1%), and about one in ten (10.7%) noted that unauthorised individuals had seen their health information. Conclusions Overall, MHC patients reported more positive experiences than negative, but a large portion of respondents reported problems with the content of the PAEHR. Further research on best practice in implementation of ORA in MHC is therefore needed, to ensure that all patients may reap the benefits while limiting potential negative consequences.

psychiatry
Patient online access to medical records in general practice: perceived effects after one year follow-up

Rosa RLC Thielmann,Ciska Hoving,Jochen WL Cals,Rik Crutzen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2024.108309

IF: 3.467

2024-05-03

Patient Education and Counseling

Abstract:Objective Online access to medical records is expected to foster patient empowerment and patient-centred healthcare. However, data on actual experienced effects remain limited. We aimed to examine the development of effects patients perceive from online access. Methods A nationwide online survey (N=1769) evaluated Dutch patients' use of online access and beliefs about its effects on 16 outcomes at baseline and one-year follow-up. Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) were used to examine within-person belief changes across three user groups: patients who 1) used online access before the study, 2) started use during the study, and 3) did not use it at all. Results There was a small decline in f ive beliefs around online access facilitating patient empowerment and participation in participants who started using online access during the study compared to at least one other user group. Most changes in beliefs did not differ between groups. Conclusion No evidence of benefits from online access was found. The findings might indicate inadequacies in the current system of online access. Possibly, the benefits of online access are contingent upon portal improvements and changes in documentation practices. Practice Implication Records need to be easily accessible and comprehensible for patients. Consultation practices should enable patient participation.

public, environmental & occupational health,social sciences, interdisciplinary
From Hippocrates to facsimile. Protecting patient confidentiality is more difficult and more important than ever before

D Y Dodek,A Dodek

1997-03-15

CMAJ

Abstract:Although patient confidentiality has been a fundamental ethical principle since the Hippocratic Oath, it is under increasing threat. The main area of confidentiality is patient records. Physicians must be able to store and dispose of medical records securely. Patients should be asked whether some information should be kept out of the record or withheld if information is released. Patient identity should be kept secret during peer review of medical records. Provincial legislation outlines circumstances in which confidential information must be divulged. Because of the "team approach" to care, hospital records may be seen by many health care and administrative personnel. All hospital workers must respect confidentiality, especially when giving out information about patients by telephone or to the media. Research based on medical-record review also creates challenges for confidentiality. Electronic technology and communications are potential major sources of breaches of confidentiality. Computer records must be carefully protected from casual browsing or from unauthorized access. Fax machines and cordless and cellular telephones can allow unauthorized people to see or overhear confidential information. Confidentiality is also a concern in clinical settings, including physicians' offices and hospitals. Conversations among hospital personnel in elevators or public cafeterias can result in breaches of confidentiality. Patient confidentiality is a right that must be safeguarded by all health care personnel.
Sharing acute care records and decoding the medical lexicon—caution and further research needed

Samuel P Trethewey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q1804

2024-08-18

BMJ

Abstract:Coulter and colleagues highlight the need for easier access to our electronic health records, to empower us all to better manage our own health.1Regarding secondary care, previous work has explored patient and clinician perspectives on providing patients with contemporaneous access to acute medical records in the UK.23 This work points to a general desire from patients for full access to their acute care records, but clinicians voiced concerns around the potential negative effects, such as increased patient uncertainty and anxiety.4I have previously discussed the role of acute care records in communicating with other healthcare professionals in a concise and efficient manner, noting the intense time pressures faced by clinical staff in the acute setting.4 I know from experience that use of medical jargon—including acronyms, abbreviations, shorthand, symbols, and complex medical terminology—is common in this context. Access to acute care notes might in some cases be confusing for patients, increasing uncertainty...

medicine, general & internal

Records. Rights of access

The effect of the proposed national data protection regime on the health sector in Australia

Patients' experiences when accessing their on-line electronic patient records in primary care

Patients Know Best: access to medical records is key

Public Supports Commercial Access to Patient Records when Public Benefit is Clear.

Freedom of Information, Right to Access Information, Open Data: Who is at the Table?

The Illusion of Health Privacy in Obstetrics-Gynecology

American Health Information Management Association. Position statement. Issue: protecting patient information after a closure.

Privacy, confidentiality and abortion statistics: a question of public interest?

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

Open AI meets open notes: surveillance capitalism, patient privacy and online record access

Perspectives on the Mental Health Act 2014 (Vic)

'I was going into it blind' : Nearest Relatives, legal literacy, and the Mental Health Act 1983

When Parents Request Nondisclosure: Rights of Adolescents to Access Their Health Information and Implications of the 21st Century Cures Act Final Rule

Icelandic. Decision of the Supreme Court on the protection of privacy with regard to the processing of Health Sector Databases. Attorney at Law vs The State of Iceland

AIDS and professional secrecy in the United States

Changes To Sharing Medical Records Could Damage Research, Report Warns

Experiences from patients in mental healthcare accessing their electronic health records: results from a cross-national survey in Estonia, Finland, Norway, and Sweden

Patient online access to medical records in general practice: perceived effects after one year follow-up

From Hippocrates to facsimile. Protecting patient confidentiality is more difficult and more important than ever before

Sharing acute care records and decoding the medical lexicon—caution and further research needed