Background The COVID-19 pandemic imposed an acute, sharp rise in the use of video consultations (VCs) by general practitioners (GPs) in Norway. Objective This study aims to document GPs’ experiences with the large-scale uptake of VCs in the natural experiment context of the pandemic. Methods A nationwide, cross-sectional online survey was conducted among Norwegian GPs during the pandemic lockdown (April 14-May 3, 2020). Each respondent was asked to evaluate up to 10 VCs. Basic demographic characteristics of the GPs and their practices were collected. The associations between GPs’ perceived suitability of the VCs, the nature of the patients’ main problems, prior knowledge of the patients (relational continuity), and follow-up of previously presented problems (episodic continuity) were explored using descriptive statistics, diagrams, and chi-square tests. Results In total, 1237 GPs (26% of the target group) responded to the survey. Among these, 1000 GPs offered VCs, and 855 GPs evaluated a total of 3484 VCs. Most GPs who offered VCs (1000/1237; 81%) had no experience with VCs before the pandemic. Overall, 51% (1766/3476) of the evaluated VCs were considered to have similar or even better suitability to assess the main reason for contact, compared to face-to-face consultations. In the presence of relational continuity, VCs were considered equal to or better than face-to-face consultations in 57% (1011/1785) of cases, as opposed to 32% (87/274) when the patient was unknown. The suitability rate for follow-up consultations (episodic continuity) was 61% (1165/1919), compared to 35% (544/1556) for new patient problems. Suitability varied considerably across clinical contact reasons. VCs were found most suitable for anxiety and life stress, depression, and administrative purposes, as well as for longstanding or complex problems that normally require multiple follow-up consultations. The GPs estimate that they will conduct about 20% of their consultations by video in a future, nonpandemic setting. Conclusions Our study of VCs performed in general practice during the pandemic lockdown indicates a clear future role for VCs in nonpandemic settings. The strong and consistent association between continuity of care and GPs’ perceptions of the suitability of VCs is a new and important finding with considerable relevance for future primary health care planning.

Background As part of political and professional development with increased focus on including service users within mental health services, these services are being transformed. Specifically, they are shifting from institutional to noninstitutional care provision with increased integration of the use of electronic health and digitalization. In the period from March to May 2020, COVID-19 restrictions forced rapid changes in the organization and provision of mental health services through the increased use of digital solutions in therapy. Objective The aim of this study was to develop and advance comprehensive knowledge about how therapists experience the use of video consultation (VC). To reach this objective, we evaluated therapists’ experiences of using VC in specialized mental health services in the early phase of COVID-19 restrictions. The following questions were explored through interviews: Which opportunities and challenges appeared when using VC during the period of COVID-19 restrictions? In a short-term care pathway, for whom does VC work and for whom does it not work? Methods This study employed a qualitative approach based on an abductive strategy and hermeneutic-phenomenological methodology. Therapists and managers in mental health departments in a hospital were interviewed via Skype for Business from March to May 2020, using a thematic interview guide that aimed to encourage reflections on the use of VC during COVID-19 restrictions. Results Therapists included in this study experienced advantages in using VC under circumstances that did not permit face-to-face consultations. The continuity that VC offered the service users was seen as a valuable asset. Various negative aspects concerning the therapeutic environment such as lack of safety for the most vulnerable service users and topics deemed unsuitable for VC lowered the therapists’ overall impression of the service. The themes that arose in the data analysis have been categorized in the following main topics: (1) VC—“it’s better than nothing”; (2) VC affects therapists’ work situation—opportunities and challenges in working conditions; and (3) challenges of VC when performing professional assessment and therapy on the screen. Conclusions Experiences with VC in a mental health hospital during COVID-19 restrictions indicate that there are overall advantages to using VC when circumstances do not permit face-to-face consultations. Nevertheless, various negative aspects in the use of VC lowered the therapists’ overall impression of VC. Further qualitative research is needed, and future studies should focus on service users’ experiences, cocreation between different stakeholders, and how to scale up the use of VC while ensuring that the service provided is appropriate, safe, and available.

Background Patient accessible electronic health records (PAEHR) hold the potential to increase patient empowerment, especially for patients with complex, long-term or chronic conditions. However, evidence of its benefits for patients who undergo mental health treatment is unclear and inconsistent, and several concerns towards use of PAEHR emerged among health professionals. This study aimed at exploring the impact of PAEHR among mental health professionals in terms of patient-provider relationship, changes in the way of writing in the electronic health records and reasons for denying access to information. Methods In-depth qualitative interviews with health professionals working in two mental health outpatient clinics at Helgelandssykehuset in Northern Norway, one of the first hospitals in Norway to implement the PAEHR in 2015. The interviews were conducted by phone or videoconferencing, audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed by a multidisciplinary research team using the Framework Method. Results A total of 16 in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted in April and May 2020. The PAEHR implemented in Norway was seen as a tool to increase transparency and improve the patient-provider relationship. The PAEHR was seen to have negative consequences only in limited situations, such as for patients with severe mental conditions, for child protective services when parents access their children’s journal, or for patients with abusive partners. The functionality to deny access to the journal was used rarely. A more common practice for making information not immediately available was to delay the final approval of the notes. The documentation practices changed over the years, but it was not clear to what extent the changes were attributable to the introduction of the PAEHR. Health professionals write their notes keeping in mind that patients might read them, and they try to avoid unclear language, information about third parties, and hypotheses that might create confusion. Conclusions The concerns voiced by mental health professionals regarding the impact of the PAEHR on the patient-provider relationship and practices to deny access to information were not supported by the results of this study. Future research should explore changes in documentation practices by analysing the content of the electronic health records.

BACKGROUND While a large number of surveys have been conducted on patients accessing their own health records in recent years, there is a limited number of nationwide cross-country data available on patients’ views and preferences. To address this gap, an international survey of patient users was conducted in the Nordic eHealth project NORDeHEALTH. OBJECTIVE To investigate the socio-demographic characteristics and experiences of patients who access their electronic health records (EHRs) through the national patient portals in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Estonia. METHODS A cross-sectional web-based survey via national online health portals. Target participants were patients that accessed the national patient portals at the start of 2022, and were aged 15 years and above. The survey included a mixture of close-ended and free-text questions about participant socio-demographics, usability, experiences with healthcare and the EHR, reasons for reading health records online, experience with errors, omissions and offence, opinions about security and privacy, as well as the usefulness of portal functions. Here, we summarised data on participant demographics, past experience with healthcare and the patient portal through descriptive statistics. RESULTS 29,334 users completed the survey, of which 9,503 (32.40%) portal users were from Norway, 13,008 (44.35%) from Sweden, 4,713 (16.07%) from Finland and 2,104 (7.17%) from Estonia. National samples were comparable according to reported gender, with two-thirds identifying as women. Age distributions were similar across the countries, but Finland had more older users while Estonia had more younger. The highest attained education and presence of healthcare education varied between the national samples. In all four countries, patients most commonly rated their health as ‘fair’ (38.48%). In Estonia, participants were more often inclined to rate their health positively, while Norway and Sweden had the highest proportion of negative health ratings. Across the whole sample, the majority of patients received some care in the last two years (86.55%). Mental healthcare was more common (21.24%) than oncological (12.52%). Overall, the majority of patients had accessed their health record ‘2 to 9 times’ (39.40%), with the most frequent users residing in Sweden, where one-third of patients accessed it ‘more than 20 times’ (35.14%). CONCLUSIONS This is the first large-scale international survey to compare patient users’ socio-demographics and experiences with accessing their EHRs. While the countries are in close geographic proximity and demonstrate similar advancements in giving their residents online records access, patient users in this survey differed. We will continue investigating patients' experiences and opinions about national patient-accessible EHRs through focused analyses of the national and combined datasets from the NORDeHEALTH 2022 Patient Survey. CLINICALTRIAL Not applicable.

Objective To explore older patients’ experiences with accessing and using e-consultations to send text-based clinical inquiries to the general practitioner (GP) online. Design Qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews. Results were analysed through a six-phase thematic analysis and interpreted through Levesque’s framework of patient-centred access to health care. Setting General practice in Norway. Subjects Patients aged over 65 years ( n = 16) with experience in using e-consultations. Results Respondents considered e-consultations as an integrated part of general practice which helped them achieve better access to health care. We identified four themes describing older patients’ access to and use of e-consultations: 1) the importance of digital health literacy to learn about and use the service – and the fear of losing it, 2) the high availability of the service as the main advantage, due to the perceived unavailability of physical GP services, 3) the importance of voluntary use of e-consultations, 4) the importance of a trusting relationship with the GP. Implications Information about e-consultations and guidelines for suitable use are recommended to ensure equal access to all patients, regardless of their digital health literacy. Availability problems and high work burdens for the GPs could affect the patients’ choice for using e-consultations. If e-consultations are used for triage purposes, caution should be taken to avoid a shift in workload from the health secretary to the GP. Key points of article The extended use of e-consultations with the general practitioner has raised concerns that the service may not be accessible and suitable for older patients. For older users, e-consultations can represent a positive addition to physical consultation forms due to the high availability of the service in a general practice setting characterised by long waiting times. Digital health literacy is essential to learn about and use the service. Information about the service and how to use it should be available to all patients to ensure equal access. A trusting relationship with the GP is described as essential for older patients to perceive the outcome of e-consultations as appropriate and safe.