Patient and public experience and views on digital systems for sharing records for health and care preferences at the end of life

Jacqueline Birtwistle, Amy M Russell, Samuel Relton, Hannah Easdown, Usha Grieve, Matthew Allsop
{"title":"Patient and public experience and views on digital systems for sharing records for health and care preferences at the end of life","authors":"Jacqueline Birtwistle, Amy M Russell, Samuel Relton, Hannah Easdown, Usha Grieve, Matthew Allsop","doi":"10.1101/2024.06.19.24309169","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To explore patient and public experiences of and priorities for the use of shared patient health records for advance care planning. Methods: A convergent-parallel mixed method design was used. An online national survey of patients and the public gathered data on experiences and views of sharing health and advance care planning information to support care at the end of life. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse rating scale responses (5 or 10-point scale) and thematic analysis applied to free-text responses. Results: Responses (N=1728) included participants in 103 UK counties, including people with a terminal condition (n=33), long-term condition (n=442), who provide or have provided care to a person with a long-term or terminal illness (n=229), and who identified as healthy and interested in planning for the future (n=1024). Confidence that recorded care preferences would be accessed when needed was low for carers (median= 2, IQR 1-4) and moderate for patients (median=3, IQR 1-4). Four themes derived from free-text responses included: i) Experience of sharing health information; ii) Preparation, communication and understanding; iii) Concerns, unknowns and assurance seeking, and; iv) Preserving Dignity and Respect: Understanding individual contexts.\nConclusions: Whilst recognising the potential of sharing health records, respondents and in particular carers, doubted that patient information would be accessed by relevant health professionals when needed. Future research is required to explore whether patient and carer access to the record influences their confidence in the accuracy of the content and the likelihood of care being delivered in line with their wishes.","PeriodicalId":501412,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Palliative Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Palliative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.19.24309169","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To explore patient and public experiences of and priorities for the use of shared patient health records for advance care planning. Methods: A convergent-parallel mixed method design was used. An online national survey of patients and the public gathered data on experiences and views of sharing health and advance care planning information to support care at the end of life. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse rating scale responses (5 or 10-point scale) and thematic analysis applied to free-text responses. Results: Responses (N=1728) included participants in 103 UK counties, including people with a terminal condition (n=33), long-term condition (n=442), who provide or have provided care to a person with a long-term or terminal illness (n=229), and who identified as healthy and interested in planning for the future (n=1024). Confidence that recorded care preferences would be accessed when needed was low for carers (median= 2, IQR 1-4) and moderate for patients (median=3, IQR 1-4). Four themes derived from free-text responses included: i) Experience of sharing health information; ii) Preparation, communication and understanding; iii) Concerns, unknowns and assurance seeking, and; iv) Preserving Dignity and Respect: Understanding individual contexts. Conclusions: Whilst recognising the potential of sharing health records, respondents and in particular carers, doubted that patient information would be accessed by relevant health professionals when needed. Future research is required to explore whether patient and carer access to the record influences their confidence in the accuracy of the content and the likelihood of care being delivered in line with their wishes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
患者和公众对生命终结时共享健康和护理偏好记录的数字系统的体验和意见
目的探讨患者和公众在使用共享患者健康记录进行预先护理规划方面的经验和优先考虑事项。方法采用聚合-平行混合方法设计。一项针对患者和公众的在线全国调查收集了有关共享健康和预先护理计划信息以支持生命末期护理的经验和观点的数据。描述性统计用于分析评分表回答(5 分或 10 分制),主题分析用于分析自由文本回答。结果:回复(N=1728)包括英国 103 个郡的参与者,其中包括身患绝症者(n=33)、长期病患者(n=442)、为长期病患者或绝症患者提供或曾经提供过护理的人(n=229),以及自认为健康并对规划未来感兴趣的人(n=1024)。照护者(中位数=2,IQR 1-4)和患者(中位数=3,IQR 1-4)对记录的护理偏好在需要时会被获取的信心较低。从自由文本回复中得出的四个主题包括:i) 分享健康信息的经历;ii) 准备、沟通和理解;iii) 担忧、未知和寻求保证;以及 iv) 维护尊严和尊重:结论:结论:受访者,尤其是照护者,虽然认识到共享健康记录的潜力,但对相关医疗专业人员能否在需要时获取患者信息表示怀疑。未来的研究需要探索病人和照护者对记录的访问是否会影响他们对记录内容准确性的信心,以及按照他们的意愿提供护理的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
An evaluation of the adequacy of Indian national and state Essential Medicines Lists (EMLs) for palliative care medical needs - a comparative analysis Development and evaluation of an online training program for palliative care in India Cross-Cultural Adaptation of the Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment Form in Greece; a pilot cross-sectional descriptive study Utilising the Palliative Prognostic Index in a mixed non-malignant and malignant patient group to determine prognosis. A general medicine tool for prognostication Pseudoscience in Cancer Services; a survey of National Health Service Trusts in England
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1