I blogged briefly the other day about the new plan to give all NHS patients access to their own medical records online. A few more thoughts:
In the short run, making medical records available to patients will give rise to a great deal of GP/patient friction. Patients won't understand what they read, and will ask for explanation. Some patients will be shocked and offended at the way physicians have characterized them (as frightened, as uncomprehending, as unwilling to discuss certain topics, as obese, and so on). Patients may not understand why a doctor hasn't written down their whole story, or accepted their version of events. A certain number of hours will inevitably be given over to discussion of what patients find in their medical records when they are first made available. (Of course, some of this might be quite healthy--patients, for example, may well discover and correct various errors or omissions in their medical histories.) In the longer run, the availability to patients of medical records will cause doctors to write and to use them differently. Gone will be the comments on patients themselves, and the notes-to-self about options to think about trying. Medical records will become cleaner, clearer, public documents; and at the same time will become a bit less useful for doctors. For that reason, I predict, doctors will come up with other ways--perhaps even extra-legal ways, but in any case ways outside the four corners of the medical record--to note their informal impressions about patients and their families.
Showing posts with label medical records. Show all posts
Showing posts with label medical records. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Patient Access to Medical Information
A group of health-related federal agencies have proposed a new regulation which would permit clinical laboratories to release test-results to patients who request them. (Currently 39 states either have no state law explicitly permitting such release to patients, or have laws mandating release only to physicians or other healthcare providers.) The current JAMA has a thoughtful analysis of some the questions raised by the new rule. The regulation is supposed to decrease physician workload, reduce the number of patients who never receive test results, and improve follow-up rates. But there are a lot of questions: will patients understand their test-results? will they experience needless anxiety over results that are abnormal but inconsequential? is it useful for patients to receive test results on their own, without medical interpretation or counseling?
Meantime, in the UK, Her Majesty's Treasury has announced in its Autumn Statement (p. 40) that all NHS patients will have online access to their own medical records by the end of this parliament (that is, by 2015). This raises a lot of questions about security and privacy, of course; but also about whether patients may be pressured into supplying their records to third parties.
Meantime, in the UK, Her Majesty's Treasury has announced in its Autumn Statement (p. 40) that all NHS patients will have online access to their own medical records by the end of this parliament (that is, by 2015). This raises a lot of questions about security and privacy, of course; but also about whether patients may be pressured into supplying their records to third parties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)