Patient-targeted googling and psychiatric professionals

Abstract

Objective This is a pilot study which assesses the beliefs of psychiatric professionals regarding obtaining patient information via the Internet as well as the frequency with which they do it in a variety of clinical settings. Methods Psychiatry faculty and residents were asked to participate in an anonymous online survey about their use of the search engine Google to find information about their patients. Data were analyzed with Microsoft Excel. Results The participants included 48 faculty and 34 residents (118 faculty and 44 residents were surveyed) with response rates of 41% and 77%, respectively. Majority of attending physicians and residents reported engaging in patient-targeted googling with no significant difference between the groups. Residents were most likely to search for patient information online in the psychiatric emergency room (45%). Psychiatric emergency room (36.8%) and private practice (31.6%) were notable clinical settings for obtaining further patient information on the Internet for the faculty. When describing reasons for engaging in patient-targeted googling, "patient care" was cited about twice as often as "curiosity" in the psychiatric emergency room, whereas "curiosity" and "patient care" were reasons mentioned in other clinical settings. In general, neither faculty nor residents report informing their patients of their Internet searches either before or after engaging in patient-targeted googling. Conclusion This study raises important questions about education for trainees and faculty regarding patient-targeted googling.

Patient‐targeted googling by psychological therapists: A narrative review of the literature and ethical implications

“…Six of these contained both closed and open questions (Deen et al., 2013; DiLillo & Gale, 2011; Eichenberg & Herzberg, 2016; Kolmes & Taube, 2014; Thabrew et al., 2018; Tunick et al., 2011). A further two (Gershengoren, 2018; Harris & Robinson Kurpius, 2014) used Likert scale questions, and the other study (Lehavot et al., 2010) did not include any information regarding the specific types of questions asked. Full study characteristics are given in Table 1.…”

“…PTG prevalence (%) was reported descriptively. These data were not aggregated as three studies did not report overall sample prevalence (DiLillo & Gale, 2011; Gershengoren, 2018; Kolmes & Taube, 2014). The proportion (%) of participants who conducted PTG without consent was reported descriptively.…”

“…The proportion (%) of participants who conducted PTG without consent was reported descriptively. These data were not aggregated as two studies did not clearly state the prevalence of non‐consent (DiLillo & Gale, 2011; Gershengoren, 2018), whilst a further three did not report any consent data (Deen et al., 2013; Kolmes & Taube, 2014; Lehavot et al., 2010). Regarding motivations, some studies reported frequency of endorsement of predefined motivations, whilst others reported themes, which were identified through quantitative content analysis of open‐ended questions.…”

“…When focussing on the five studies that did state participants were assured of anonymity, prevalence rates vary from one in five qualified professionals sampled (Deen et al, 2013) to almost all of them (Gershengoren, 2018). No study discussed the impact of anonymity on bias in the data due to shame or professional censure fears.…”

“…Motivations for PTG were similar for both hypothetical and actual instances of PTG. The one exception was "to improve care quality", which was only reported in two studies of hypothetical PTG (Gershengoren, 2018;Thabrew et al, 2018). The most common motivations were to verify known information, to obtain new infor- a Question asked about consequences of actual PTG that had been undertaken in the past (other studies focused on hypothetical PTG).…”