Abstract
Objective To describe the experiences and opinions of general practitioners (GPs) in England regarding patients having access to their full online GP health record.
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 on patient care, and on 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%). In contrast, 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 reported 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 record.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This survey was made possible by the funding 'Beyond Implementation' awarded by FORTE, the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare (CB, MH, CD). Further support comes from a Keane Scholar Award (CB), BM and GD are funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR Award ref: NIHR300887). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. Andrew Turner's time is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC West) at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics committee/IRB of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School gave ethical approval for this work (Protocol # 2021P000626).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data provided in Supplement 2.
