• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

患者识别和回应个人健康记录错误的意愿和能力:基于横断面调查数据的混合方法分析。

Patients' Willingness and Ability to Identify and Respond to Errors in Their Personal Health Records: Mixed Methods Analysis of Cross-sectional Survey Data.

机构信息

National Institute for Health Research Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.

Imperial College Healthcare National Health Service Trust, London, United Kingdom.

出版信息

J Med Internet Res. 2022 Jul 8;24(7):e37226. doi: 10.2196/37226.

DOI:10.2196/37226
PMID:35802397
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9308067/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Errors in electronic health records are known to contribute to patient safety incidents; however, systems for checking the accuracy of patient records are almost nonexistent. Personal health records (PHRs) enabling patient access to and interaction with the clinical records offer a valuable opportunity for patients to actively participate in error surveillance.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate patients' willingness and ability to identify and respond to errors in their PHRs.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted using a web-based questionnaire. Patient sociodemographic data were collected, including age, sex, ethnicity, educational level, health status, geographical location, motivation to self-manage, and digital health literacy (measured using the eHealth Literacy Scale tool). Patients with experience of using the Care Information Exchange (CIE) portal, who specified both age and sex, were included in these analyses. The patients' responses to 4 relevant survey items (closed-ended questions, some with space for free-text comments) were examined to understand their willingness and ability to identify and respond to errors in their PHRs. Multinomial logistic regression was used to identify patients' characteristics that predict the ability to understand information in the CIE and willingness to respond to errors in their records. The framework method was used to derive themes from patients' free-text responses.

RESULTS

Of 445 patients, 181 (40.7%) "definitely" understood the CIE information and approximately half (220/445, 49.4%) understood the CIE information "to some extent." Patients with high digital health literacy (eHealth Literacy Scale score ≥26) were more confident in their ability to understand their records compared with patients with low digital health literacy (odds ratio [OR] 7.85, 95% CI 3.04-20.29; P<.001). Information-related barriers (medical terminology and lack of medical guidance or contextual information) and system-related barriers (functionality or usability and information communicated or displayed poorly) were described. Of 445 patients, 79 (17.8%) had noticed errors in their PHRs, which were related to patient demographic details, diagnoses, medical history, results, medications, letters or correspondence, and appointments. Most patients (272/445, 61.1%) wanted to be able to flag up errors to their health professionals for correction; 20.4% (91/445) of the patients were willing to correct errors themselves. Native English speakers were more likely to be willing to flag up errors to health professionals (OR 3.45, 95% CI 1.11-10.78; P=.03) or correct errors themselves (OR 5.65, 95% CI 1.33-24.03; P=.02).

CONCLUSIONS

A large proportion of patients were able and willing to identify and respond to errors in their PHRs. However, some barriers persist that disproportionately affect the underserved groups. Further development of PHR systems, including incorporating channels for patient feedback on the accuracy of their records, should address the needs of nonnative English speakers and patients with lower digital health literacy.

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d6f5/9308067/74f4f37c0880/jmir_v24i7e37226_fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d6f5/9308067/74f4f37c0880/jmir_v24i7e37226_fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d6f5/9308067/74f4f37c0880/jmir_v24i7e37226_fig1.jpg
摘要

背景

电子健康记录中的错误已知会导致患者安全事件;然而,几乎没有用于检查患者记录准确性的系统。允许患者访问和与临床记录交互的个人健康记录 (PHR) 为患者积极参与错误监测提供了宝贵的机会。

目的

本研究旨在评估患者识别和响应其 PHR 中错误的意愿和能力。

方法

使用基于网络的问卷进行了横断面调查。收集了患者的社会人口统计学数据,包括年龄、性别、种族、教育水平、健康状况、地理位置、自我管理动机和数字健康素养(使用电子健康素养量表工具测量)。包括有使用 Care Information Exchange (CIE) 门户经验且同时指定年龄和性别的患者。通过检查患者对 4 个相关调查项目(封闭式问题,有些带有自由文本注释的空间)的回答,了解他们识别和响应 PHR 中错误的意愿和能力。使用多项逻辑回归来确定预测患者理解 CIE 信息能力和对记录中错误做出响应意愿的患者特征。使用框架方法从患者的自由文本回答中得出主题。

结果

在 445 名患者中,有 181 名(40.7%)“肯定”理解了 CIE 信息,约有一半(220/445,49.4%)“在一定程度上”理解了 CIE 信息。数字健康素养较高(电子健康素养量表评分≥26)的患者比数字健康素养较低的患者(优势比 [OR] 7.85,95%CI 3.04-20.29;P<.001)更有信心理解自己的记录。描述了与信息相关的障碍(医学术语和缺乏医疗指导或上下文信息)和与系统相关的障碍(功能或可用性以及不良传达或显示的信息)。在 445 名患者中,有 79 名(17.8%)注意到 PHR 中的错误,这些错误与患者的人口统计细节、诊断、病史、结果、药物、信件或信件、预约有关。大多数患者(272/445,61.1%)希望能够向他们的医疗保健专业人员标记错误以进行更正;20.4%(91/445)的患者愿意自己更正错误。以英语为母语的患者更有可能愿意向医疗保健专业人员标记错误(OR 3.45,95%CI 1.11-10.78;P=.03)或自行更正错误(OR 5.65,95%CI 1.33-24.03;P=.02)。

结论

很大一部分患者有能力且愿意识别和响应其 PHR 中的错误。然而,一些持续存在的障碍会不成比例地影响服务不足的群体。进一步开发 PHR 系统,包括纳入患者对其记录准确性的反馈渠道,应满足非英语母语者和数字健康素养较低的患者的需求。

相似文献

1
Patients' Willingness and Ability to Identify and Respond to Errors in Their Personal Health Records: Mixed Methods Analysis of Cross-sectional Survey Data.患者识别和回应个人健康记录错误的意愿和能力:基于横断面调查数据的混合方法分析。
J Med Internet Res. 2022 Jul 8;24(7):e37226. doi: 10.2196/37226.
2
Perceptions of Quality of Care Among Users of a Web-Based Patient Portal: Cross-sectional Survey Analysis.基于网络的患者门户用户对医疗质量的认知:横断面调查分析。
J Med Internet Res. 2022 Nov 17;24(11):e39973. doi: 10.2196/39973.
3
Digital Health Literacy as a Predictor of Awareness, Engagement, and Use of a National Web-Based Personal Health Record: Population-Based Survey Study.数字健康素养作为国家网络个人健康记录的知晓度、参与度和使用度的预测因素:基于人群的调查研究。
J Med Internet Res. 2022 Sep 16;24(9):e35772. doi: 10.2196/35772.
4
Consumers' perceptions about and use of the internet for personal health records and health information exchange: analysis of the 2007 Health Information National Trends Survey.消费者对互联网用于个人健康记录和健康信息交换的认知与使用:2007年健康信息国家趋势调查分析
J Med Internet Res. 2010 Dec 18;12(4):e73. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1668.
5
Willingness of Patients Prescribed Medications for Lifestyle-Related Diseases to Use Personal Health Records: Questionnaire Study.为生活方式相关疾病开具药物处方的患者使用个人健康记录的意愿:问卷调查研究
J Med Internet Res. 2020 May 28;22(5):e13866. doi: 10.2196/13866.
6
The usability of electronic personal health record systems for an underserved adult population.电子个人健康记录系统在服务不足的成年人群中的可用性。
Hum Factors. 2015 May;57(3):491-506. doi: 10.1177/0018720814549238. Epub 2014 Sep 5.
7
Consumer attitudes toward personal health records in a beacon community.消费者对灯塔社区中个人健康记录的态度。
Am J Manag Care. 2011 Apr;17(4):e104-20.
8
Patients' Experiences of Web-Based Access to Electronic Health Records in Finland: Cross-sectional Survey.芬兰患者对基于网络的电子健康记录访问的体验:横断面调查。
J Med Internet Res. 2022 Jun 6;24(6):e37438. doi: 10.2196/37438.
9
The impact of health literacy on a patient's decision to adopt a personal health record.健康素养对患者采用个人健康记录这一决定的影响。
Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2012;9(Fall):1-13. Epub 2012 Oct 1.
10
The health literacy demands of electronic personal health records (e-PHRs): An integrative review to inform future inclusive research.电子个人健康记录 (e-PHRs) 的健康素养要求:综合评价以指导未来具有包容性的研究。
Patient Educ Couns. 2018 Jan;101(1):2-15. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2017.07.010. Epub 2017 Jul 11.

引用本文的文献

1
Do Postoperative Orthopedic Patients Accurately Report Their Narcotic Medication Usage Using the Interventional Pain Assessment Drugs Scale?骨科术后患者使用介入性疼痛评估药物量表能否准确报告其麻醉药物使用情况?
Cureus. 2025 Jun 12;17(6):e85852. doi: 10.7759/cureus.85852. eCollection 2025 Jun.
2
Biases in Electronic Health Records Data for Generating Real-World Evidence: An Overview.用于生成真实世界证据的电子健康记录数据中的偏差:概述
J Healthc Inform Res. 2023 Nov 14;8(1):121-139. doi: 10.1007/s41666-023-00153-2. eCollection 2024 Mar.
3
Perceptions of Quality of Care Among Users of a Web-Based Patient Portal: Cross-sectional Survey Analysis.

本文引用的文献

1
Determinants of Use of the Care Information Exchange Portal: Cross-sectional Study.使用护理信息交换门户的决定因素:横断面研究。
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Nov 11;23(11):e23481. doi: 10.2196/23481.
2
Identifying Health Information Technology Usability Issues Contributing to Medication Errors Across Medication Process Stages.识别导致整个用药流程阶段用药错误的卫生信息技术可用性问题。
J Patient Saf. 2021 Dec 1;17(8):e988-e994. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000868.
3
Assessment of Patients' Ability to Review Electronic Health Record Information to Identify Potential Errors: Cross-sectional Web-Based Survey.
基于网络的患者门户用户对医疗质量的认知:横断面调查分析。
J Med Internet Res. 2022 Nov 17;24(11):e39973. doi: 10.2196/39973.
评估患者查看电子健康记录信息以识别潜在错误的能力:基于网络的横断面调查。
JMIR Form Res. 2021 Feb 26;5(2):e19074. doi: 10.2196/19074.
4
Speaking up about patient-perceived serious visit note errors: Patient and family experiences and recommendations.患者感知的严重就诊记录错误:患者和家属的经历及建议。
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2021 Mar 18;28(4):685-694. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocaa293.
5
Applying the Electronic Health Literacy Lens: Systematic Review of Electronic Health Interventions Targeted at Socially Disadvantaged Groups.运用电子健康素养视角:针对社会弱势群体的电子健康干预措施的系统评价。
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Aug 13;22(8):e18476. doi: 10.2196/18476.
6
Impact of providing patients access to electronic health records on quality and safety of care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.提供患者电子健康记录访问权限对医疗质量和安全的影响:系统评价和荟萃分析。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2020 Dec;29(12):1019-1032. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010581. Epub 2020 Jun 12.
7
Frequency and Types of Patient-Reported Errors in Electronic Health Record Ambulatory Care Notes.电子健康记录门诊护理记录中患者报告错误的频率和类型。
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Jun 1;3(6):e205867. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.5867.
8
National Trends in the Safety Performance of Electronic Health Record Systems From 2009 to 2018.2009 年至 2018 年电子健康记录系统安全性能的国家趋势。
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 May 1;3(5):e205547. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.5547.
9
A systematic review of patient access to medical records in the acute setting: practicalities, perspectives and ethical consequences.一篇关于急性环境下患者获取病历的系统综述:实际情况、观点和伦理后果。
BMC Med Ethics. 2020 Mar 2;21(1):18. doi: 10.1186/s12910-020-0459-6.
10
Improving data sharing between acute hospitals in England: an overview of health record system distribution and retrospective observational analysis of inter-hospital transitions of care.改善英格兰急性医院之间的数据共享:卫生记录系统分布概述及医院间转科护理的回顾性观察分析。
BMJ Open. 2019 Dec 5;9(12):e031637. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031637.