A Comparison of Approaches to Providing Patients Access to Summary Care Records Across Old and New Europe: An Exploration of Facilitators and Barriers to Implementation

Providing online access to their medical records should empower patients. National health services in Estonia, France, and England introduced systems to provide online access to summary health data. The Estonian patient access called "Patient Portal" shares similarities with the French system "Dossier Médical Personnel" (DMP). Both are patient-controlled records. The English system "Summary Care Record" (SCR) provided access to patients through "HealthSpace," though has now been replaced by encouraging access to GP records. Denmark and Ireland also provided access rights to patients so they could view their records. Romania, Croatia, and Greece do not have national systems. The aim of this study is to compare adoption and uptake of patient access to summary data. The Estonian record was used by 3.6% of the population, the French one by 0.5% and the English system is due for closure with only 0.01% signing up for the most comprehensive access. Few countries across Europe have adopted patient access to summary health data at a national level, and where introduced, medical records have been accessed by less than 5% of the population.

[1]  Simon de Lusignan,et al.  A comparison of English and French Approaches to Providing Patients Access to Summary Care Records: Scope, Consent, Cost , 2013, EFMI-STC.

[2]  A. Sheikh,et al.  The provision and impact of online patient access to their electronic health records (EHR) and transactional services on the quality and safety of health care: systematic review protocol. , 2013, Informatics in primary care.

[3]  G. Elwyn,et al.  Why do clinicians not refer patients to online decision support tools? Interviews with front line clinics in the NHS , 2012, BMJ Open.

[4]  F. Mair,et al.  An overview of electronic health systems development & integration in Scotland , 2011, MIXHS '11.

[5]  S. Shishkin,et al.  Russian Federation. Health system review. , 2011, Health systems in transition.

[6]  T. Greenhalgh,et al.  Adoption, non-adoption, and abandonment of a personal electronic health record: case study of HealthSpace , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[7]  Peeter Ross,et al.  Patient opportunities in the Estonian Electronic Health Record System. , 2010, Studies in health technology and informatics.

[8]  Maria Papadakaki,et al.  Policy Special series : Integrated primary health care Integrated primary health care in Greece , a missing issue in the current health policy agenda : a systematic review , 2009 .

[9]  Valerie M. Sue,et al.  If you build it, will they come? The Kaiser Permanente model of online health care. , 2009, Health affairs.

[10]  Gary W. Wood,et al.  Patients’ attitudes to the summary care record and HealthSpace: qualitative study , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[11]  Claudia Pagliari,et al.  Potential of electronic personal health records , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[12]  Chen-Tan Lin,et al.  Expectations of Patients and Physicians Regarding Patient-Accessible Medical Records , 2005, Journal of medical Internet research.

[13]  Chen-Tan Lin,et al.  Review Paper: The Effects of Promoting Patient Access to Medical Records: A Review , 2003, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[14]  B. Kirby Patient access to medical records. , 1991, Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London.

[15]  D. C. Warner,et al.  Sounding board. Giving the patient his medical record: a proposal to improve the system. , 1973, The New England journal of medicine.