Patient-Accessible Electronic Health Records and Information Practices in Mental Health Care Contexts: Scoping Review.

Abstract

Background: Patients are increasingly being provided with access to their electronic health records. However, in mental health care contexts, concerns have been raised due to a perception that such access would pose risks to patients, third parties, and the therapeutic relationship. These perceived risks may affect the information practices of health care professionals (HCPs) and patients, such as how they document, share, and use information in mental health care services with a patient-accessible electronic health record (PAEHR). Although there is growing research interest in PAEHRs, no study has specifically examined how they impact information practices. Understanding the impacts on information practices may help explain other outcomes of implementing PAEHRs and inform their design.

Objective: This scoping review aimed to explore the research on PAEHRs in mental health care contexts and how PAEHRs affect information practices of HCPs and patients in this context.

Methods: A scoping review was considered the most appropriate method due to the relatively recent adoption of PAEHRs in mental health care contexts and the heterogeneous nature of the evidence base. A comprehensive search of electronic databases was conducted for original empirical studies that described the use of PAEHRs or associated systems in mental health care contexts. One author reviewed all full texts, with 3 other authors reviewing a subset of studies. The study characteristics and findings were documented, and a thematic synthesis and textual narrative analysis were used to develop descriptive and analytical themes that addressed the research questions.

Results: A total of 66 studies were considered eligible and included in the analysis. The impact of PAEHRs on information practices in mental health care contexts included the following: (1) they may change how HCPs document patient information, including a reduction in detail and a focus on information perceived by HCPs as objective rather than subjective; (2) they may negatively impact workflows due to changes in documentation practices and limited guidance for HCPs on how to use PAEHRs; and (3) they may contribute to improved communication between HCPs and patients, including constructive disagreements regarding what is documented in the health record. The changes to HCP information practices were influenced by a concern for the therapeutic relationship and patient safety. Furthermore, PAEHRs supported new information practices for patients, such as using their PAEHR to prepare for clinical encounters.

Conclusions: We have identified several ways in which PAEHRs shape the information practices of HCPs and patients in the mental health context. These findings can inform the design of PAEHRs to promote information practices that contribute to improving the quality of mental health care. Further research is necessary to understand how changes in information practices due to the implementation of PAEHRs impact clinical outcomes and patient experiences of care.