Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37921861›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023

Errors, Omissions, and Offenses in the Health Record of Mental Health Care Patients: Results from a Nationwide Survey in Sweden.

Annika Bärkås, Anna Kharko, Charlotte Blease, Åsa Cajander, Asbjørn Johansen Fagerlund, Isto Huvila, Monika Alise Johansen, Bridget Kane, Sari Kujala, Jonas Moll and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Annika BärkåsParticipatory eHealth and Health Data Research Group, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-1209-7714
Anna KharkoParticipatory eHealth and Health Data Research Group, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-0908-6173
Charlotte BleaseParticipatory eHealth and Health Data Research Group, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-0205-1165
Åsa CajanderDepartment of Information Technology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-7472-2215
Asbjørn Johansen FagerlundNorwegian Centre for E-Health Research, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-2331-8786
Isto HuvilaDepartment of ALM, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-9196-2106
Monika Alise JohansenNorwegian Centre for E-Health Research, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-6353-8727
Bridget KaneBusiness School, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-3211-6529
Sari KujalaDepartment of Computer Science, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-5586-3725
Jonas MollCentre for Empirical Research on Information Systems, School of Business, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-4772-4730
Hanife RexhepiSchool of Informatics, University of Skövde, Skövde, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-8957-9853
Isabella ScandurraCentre for Empirical Research on Information Systems, School of Business, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-2597-1079
Bo WangNorwegian Centre for E-Health Research, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-5667-8361
Maria HägglundParticipatory eHealth and Health Data Research Group, Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-6839-3651

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevious research reports that patients with mental health conditions experience benefits, for example, increased empowerment and validation, from reading their patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs). In mental health care (MHC), PAEHRs remain controversial, as health care professionals are concerned that patients may feel worried or offended by the content of the notes. Moreover, existing research has focused on specific mental health diagnoses, excluding the larger PAEHR userbase with experience in MHC.

objectiveThe objective of this study is to establish if and how the experiences of patients with and those without MHC differ in using their PAEHRs by (1) comparing patient characteristics and differences in using the national patient portal between the 2 groups and (2) establishing group differences in the prevalence of negative experiences, for example, rates of errors, omissions, and offenses between the 2 groups.

methodsOur analysis was performed on data from an online patient survey distributed through the Swedish national patient portal as part of our international research project, NORDeHEALTH. The respondents were patient users of the national patient portal 1177, aged 15 years or older, and categorized either as those with MHC experience or with any other health care experience (nonmental health care [non-MHC]). Patient characteristics such as gender, age, education, employment, and health status were gathered. Portal use characteristics included frequency of access, encouragement to read the record, and instances of positive and negative experiences. Negative experiences were further explored through rates of error, omission, and offense. The data were summarized through descriptive statistics. Group differences were analyzed through Pearson chi-square.

resultsOf the total sample (N=12,334), MHC respondents (n=3131) experienced errors (1586/3131, 50.65%, and non-MHC 3311/9203, 35.98%), omissions (1089/3131, 34.78%, and non-MHC 2427/9203, 26.37%) and offenses (1183/3131, 37.78%, and non-MHC 1616/9203, 17.56%) in the electronic health record at a higher rate than non-MHC respondents (n=9203). Respondents reported that the identified error (MHC 795/3131, 50.13%, and non-MHC 1366/9203, 41.26%) and omission (MHC 622/3131, 57.12%, and non-MHC 1329/9203, 54.76%) were "very important," but most did nothing to correct them (MHC 792/3131, 41.29%, and non-MHC 1838/9203, 42.17%). Most of the respondents identified as women in both groups.

conclusionsAbout 1 in 2 MHC patients identified an error in the record, and about 1 in 3 identified an omission, both at a much higher rate than in the non-MHC group. Patients with MHC also felt offended by the content of the notes more commonly (1 in 3 vs 1 in 6). These findings validate some of the worries expressed by health care professionals about providing patients with MHC with PAEHRs and highlight challenges with the documentation quality in the records.

Indexed as

Health Records, PersonalMental HealthElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesSwedenEHRelectronic health recordsmental healthmental health carenational surveyonline records accessopen notesORAPAEHRpatient-accessible electronic health recordpatientsuser experiences

Identifiers

PMID37921861
PMCPMC10656659

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.