Abstract
Objective To explore patient and public experiences of and priorities for the use of shared patient health records for advance care planning.
Methods A convergent-parallel mixed method design was used. An online national survey of patients and the public gathered data on experiences and views of sharing health and advance care planning information to support care at the end of life. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse rating scale responses (5 or 10-point scale) and thematic analysis applied to free-text responses.
Results Responses (N=1728) included participants in 103 UK counties, including people with a terminal condition (n=33), long-term condition (n=442), who provide or have provided care to a person with a long-term or terminal illness (n=229), and who identified as healthy and interested in planning for the future (n=1024). Confidence that recorded care preferences would be accessed when needed was low for carers (median= 2, IQR 1-4) and moderate for patients (median=3, IQR 1-4). Four themes derived from free-text responses included: i) Experience of sharing health information; ii) Preparation, communication and understanding; iii) Concerns, unknowns and assurance seeking, and; iv) Preserving Dignity and Respect: Understanding individual contexts.
Conclusions Whilst recognising the potential of sharing health records, respondents and in particular carers, doubted that patient information would be accessed by relevant health professionals when needed. Future research is required to explore whether patient and carer access to the record influences their confidence in the accuracy of the content and the likelihood of care being delivered in line with their wishes.
What is already known on this topic Digital systems can support documentation and sharing of health information, wishes and preferences for the end of life.
What this study adds Patients and carers perceive the documentation of advance care plans as a burdensome and complex process, that can lead to confusion about the purpose of documentation.
Respondents expressed doubts about the accuracy of documented information, uncertainty about whether health professionals could access their records when needed and concerns that documented wishes and preferences would be ignored.
How this study might affect research, practice or policy Patient and public views must be considered in the design and implementation of digital systems. In particular, efforts should be made to build confidence and clarify the expectations of patients and members of the public around the documentation of their wishes and preferences for care alongside the subsequent sharing and use of this information.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the Research England Policy Fund (2021).
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:
School of Medicine Research Ethics Committee of the University of Leeds gave ethical approval for this work (reference: MREC 21-032).
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
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.