Benchmarking usability of patient portals in Estonia, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.

INTRODUCTION: Poor usability is a barrier to widespread adoption of electronic health records (EHR). Providing good usability is especially challenging in the health care context, as there is a wide variety of patient users. Usability benchmarking is an approach for improving usability by evaluating and comparing the strength and weaknesses of systems. The main purpose of this study is to benchmark usability of patient portals across countries. METHODS: A mixed-methods survey approach was applied to benchmark the national patient portals offering patient access to EHR in Estonia, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. These Nordic countries have similar public healthcare systems, and they are pioneers in offering patients access to EHR for several years. In a survey of 29,334 patients, both patients' quantitative ratings of usability and their qualitative descriptions of very positive and very negative peak experiences of portal use were collected. RESULTS: The usability scores ranged from good to fair level of usability. The narratives of very positive and very negative experiences included the benefits of the patient portals and experienced usability issues. The regression analysis of results showed that very positive and negative experiences of patient portal use explain 19-35% of the variation of usability scores in the four countries. The percentage of patients who reported very positive or very negative experiences in each country was unrelated to the usability scores across countries. CONCLUSIONS: The survey approach could be used to evaluate usability with a wide variety of users and it supported learning from comparison across the countries. The combination of quantitative and qualitative data provided an approximation of the level of the perceived usability, and identified usability issues to be improved and useful features that patients appreciate. Further work is needed to improve the comparability of the varied samples across countries.

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

BACKGROUND: Previous 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. OBJECTIVE: The 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. METHODS: Our 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. RESULTS: Of 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. CONCLUSIONS: About 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.