ObjectivesTo investigate the effect of providing patients online access to their electronic health record (EHR) and linked transactional services on the provision, quality and safety of healthcare. The objectives are also to identify and understand: barriers and facilitators for providing online access to their records and services for primary care workers; and their association with organisational/IT system issues.SettingPrimary care.ParticipantsA total of 143 studies were included. 17 were experimental in design and subject to risk of bias assessment, which is reported in a separate paper. Detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria have also been published elsewhere in the protocol.Primary and secondary outcome measuresOur primary outcome measure was change in quality or safety as a result of implementation or utilisation of online records/transactional services.ResultsNo studies reported changes in health outcomes; though eight detected medication errors and seven reported improved uptake of preventative care. Professional concerns over privacy were reported in 14 studies. 18 studies reported concern over potential increased workload; with some showing an increase workload in email or online messaging; telephone contact remaining unchanged, and face-to face contact staying the same or falling. Owing to heterogeneity in reporting overall workload change was hard to predict. 10 studies reported how online access offered convenience, primarily for more advantaged patients, who were largely highly satisfied with the process when clinician responses were prompt.ConclusionsPatient online access and services offer increased convenience and satisfaction. However, professionals were concerned about impact on workload and risk to privacy. Studies correcting medication errors may improve patient safety. There may need to be a redesign of the business process to engage health professionals in online access and of the EHR to make it friendlier and provide equity of access to a wider group of patients.A1. Systematic review registration numberPROSPERO CRD42012003091.

BackgroundOnline access to medical records by patients can potentially enhance provision of patient-centred care and improve satisfaction. However, online access and services may also prove to be an additional burden for the healthcare provider. AimTo assess the impact of providing patients with access to their general practice electronic health records (EHR) and other EHR-linked online services on the provision, quality, and safety of health care. Design and settingA systematic review was conducted that focused on all studies about online record access and transactional services in primary care. MethodData sources included MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EPOC, DARE, King's Fund, Nuffield Health, PsycINFO, OpenGrey (1999-2012. The literature was independently screened against detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria; independent dual data extraction was conducted, the risk of bias (RoB) assessed, and a narrative synthesis of the evidence conducted. ResultsA total of 176 studies were identified, 17 of which were randomised controlled trials, cohort, or cluster studies. Patients reported improved satisfaction with online access and services compared with standard provision, improved selfcare, and better communication and engagement with clinicians. Safety improvements were patient-led through identifying medication errors and facilitating more use of preventive services. Provision of online record access and services resulted in a moderate increase of e-mail, no change on telephone contact, but there were variable effects on face-to-face contact. However, other tasks were necessary to sustain these services, which impacted on clinician time. There were no reports of harm or breaches in privacy. ConclusionWhile the RoB scores suggest many of the studies were of low quality, patients using online services reported increased convenience and satisfaction. These services positively impacted on patient safety, although there were variations of record access and use by specific ethnic and socioeconomic groups. Professional concerns about privacy were unrealised and those about workload were only partly so.

BackgroundThe increasing burden of chronic disease is recognised globally. Within the English National Health Service, patients with chronic disease comprise of half of all consultations in primary care, and 70% of inpatient bed days. The cost of prescribing long-term medications for those with physical chronic diseases is rising and there is a drive to reduce medicine wastage and costs. While current policies in England are focused on the latter, there has been little previous research on patient experience of ordering and obtaining regular medication for their chronic disease. This paper presents findings from England of a qualitative study and survey of patients and their carers’ experiences of community and primary care based services for physical chronic diseases. Although not the primary focus of the study, the results highlighted particular issues around service delivery of repeat prescriptions.MethodsWe conducted 21 qualitative in-depth interviews with 30 patients and family carers’ in two Primary Care Trusts in England. Participants were receiving community based care for diabetes, respiratory, neurological or complex co-morbidities, and ranged in age from 39–92 years old. We used a broadly inductive approach to enable themes around patient experience to emerge from the data.ResultsWhile the study sought to gain an overview of patient experience, the findings suggested that the processes associated with ordering and obtaining regular medication – the repeat prescription, was most frequently described as a recurring hassle of managing a long-term condition. Issues for patients and carers included multiple journeys to the surgery and pharmacy, lack of synchrony and dissatisfaction with the length of prescriptions.ConclusionMuch literature exists around medication waste and cost, which led to encouragement from the NHS in England to reduce dosage units to a 28-day supply. While there has been an acknowledgement that longer supplies may be suitable for people with stable chronic conditions, it appears that there is limited evidence on the impact of shorter length prescriptions on patient and carer experience, adherence and health outcomes. Recent policy documents within England also fail to address possible links between patient experience, adherence and flaws within repeat prescription service delivery.

Two reviewers independently searched 11 international databases during the period 1999-2012. A range of papers including descriptive studies using qualitative or quantitative methods, hypothesis-testing studies and systematic reviews were included. A detailed eligibility criterion will be used to shape study inclusion. A team of experts will review these papers for eligibility, extract data using a customised extraction form and use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) instrument to determine the quality of the evidence and the strengths of any recommendation. Data will then be descriptively summarised and thematically synthesised. Where feasible, we will perform a quantitative meta-analysis. Prospero (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) registration number: crd42012003091.

SummaryObjectiveTo examine the performance assessments and cognitive function of practitioners referred to the National Clinical Assessment Service (NCAS).DesignRetrospective observational study.SettingPractitioners referred to NCAS for performance assessment due to suspected performance problems.ParticipantsOne hundred and nine practitioners over the age of 45 years referred to NCAS between 1 September 2008 and 30 June 2012.Main outcome measuresReasons for referral of practitioners and their characteristics; details of their assessments including screening for cognition using Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination Revised (ACE-R); outcome of the process.ResultsReasons for referral included ‘clinical difficulties’ and ‘governance or safety issues’. Eighty-seven practitioners scored above 88 on ACE-R. Twenty-two were found to have an ACE-R score of ≤88. On further assessment, 14 of these 22 practitioners were found to have cognitive impairment. The majority of all practitioners were found to be performing below the expected level of practice for someone at their grade and specialty. Of those scoring ≤88 on the screening, only seven continued in clinical practice.ConclusionsA high proportion of practitioners scoring poorly on ACE-R were found to have cognitive impairment following detailed neuropsychological testing, the youngest aged 46 years. Many were working in isolation. Nearly all practitioners scoring poorly on ACE-R were international medical graduates; reasons for this are unclear. Performance assessment results showed persisting failings in the practitioners' record keeping and in their assessment of patients. Our findings highlight the need for increased vigilance and training of responsible officers to recognise performance problems and emphasise the importance of comprehensive assessment.