{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,2,27]],"date-time":"2026-02-27T04:20:10Z","timestamp":1772166010835,"version":"3.50.1"},"reference-count":31,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"1","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2024,12,3]],"date-time":"2024-12-03T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1733184000000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2024,12,3]],"date-time":"2024-12-03T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1733184000000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"funder":[{"DOI":"10.13039\/501100013631","name":"Patient Safety Translational Research Centre","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","award":["PSTRC-2016-004"],"award-info":[{"award-number":["PSTRC-2016-004"]}],"id":[{"id":"10.13039\/501100013631","id-type":"DOI","asserted-by":"publisher"}]}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["BMC Med Inform Decis Mak"],"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Background<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>The proliferation of electronic health records (EHR) in health systems of many high-income countries has ushered in profound changes to how clinical information is used, stored, and disseminated. For patients, being able to easily access and share their health information electronically through interoperable EHRs can often impact safety and their experience when seeking care across healthcare providers. While extensive research exists examining how EHRs affected workflow and technical challenges such as limited interoperability, much of it was done from the viewpoint of healthcare staff rather than from patients themselves. This leaves a critical knowledge gap in our evidence base to inform better implementation of health information technologies which needs addressing.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Aims and objectives<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>This study aimed to explore how patients with chronic conditions or polypharmacy and their caregivers perceive the current state of EHR interoperability, identify instances where it was associated with negative health outcomes, and elucidate patient-driven recommendations to address concerns raised.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>A total of 18 patients and caregivers participated in five online focus groups between May-July 2022. Thematic analysis was performed to generate codes and derive higher-order themes.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Participants highlighted that EHR interoperability in the NHS does not meet patient needs and expectations. While patients\u2019 understanding of the concept of EHR interoperability was mixed, most were able to describe how the inability to seamlessly share health information within EHR has negatively impacted care. Limited interoperability contributed to inaccurate medical records, perpetuated existing incorrect information, impaired clinical decision-making, and often required patients to resort to using workarounds. Patients also voiced ideas for potential solutions for consideration. These included a move towards a one-centralised system approach, strengthening data security measures to augment other efforts to increase interoperability, prioritising health information technology training for NHS staff, and involving more allied health professionals and patients themselves in the EHR data curation process.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusion<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Our study contributes to the existing body of literature by providing the perspectives of patients and carers most likely to encounter interoperability challenges and therefore those most ideally positioned to propose potential solutions. As highlighted by patients, researchers and policymakers should consider social, educational, and organisational solutions, in addition to technical solutions.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Public interest Summary<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Lack of interoperability (i.e., the ability to share a patient\u2019s health information electronically between healthcare providers) can affect the quality of care received. However, much of the existing research was done from the viewpoint of healthcare staff rather than from patients themselves. This study explored the views of patients regarding what they feel interoperability in the NHS is currently like, how they think it affects their care, and what they think can be done to improve it. Patients reported interoperability to often be poor. It caused inconvenience both to themselves and their healthcare provider, and negatively impacted their experience getting care overall. Patient suggestions for improvement included centralising and reducing the number of existing systems, having more training for healthcare staff, and supporting patients and other healthcare staff in managing their health data.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1186\/s12911-024-02789-5","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2024,12,3]],"date-time":"2024-12-03T10:53:14Z","timestamp":1733223194000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":7,"title":["Patient and caregiver perceptions of electronic health records interoperability in the NHS and its impact on care quality: a focus group study"],"prefix":"10.1186","volume":"24","author":[{"given":"Edmond","family":"Li","sequence":"first","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Olivia","family":"Lounsbury","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Jonathan","family":"Clarke","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Hutan","family":"Ashrafian","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Ara","family":"Darzi","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Ana Luisa","family":"Neves","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2024,12,3]]},"reference":[{"key":"2789_CR1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Tamblyn R, Abrahamowicz M, Buckeridge DL, Bustillo M, Forster AJ, Girard N et al. Effect of an Electronic Medication Reconciliation Intervention on Adverse Drug Events A Cluster Randomized Trial\u2009+\u2009Supplemental content and Audio. JAMA Netw Open [Internet]. 2019;2(9):1910756. https:\/\/jamanetwork.com\/","DOI":"10.1001\/jamanetworkopen.2019.10756"},{"key":"2789_CR2","unstructured":"Xiao AQ, Acosta FX. Implementation and Impact of Psychiatric Electronic Medical Records in a Public Medical Center. Perspect Heal Inf Manag. 2016;13(Fall)."},{"key":"2789_CR3","unstructured":"Ramaiah M, Subrahmanian E, Sriram RD, Lide BB. Workflow and electronic health records in small medical practices. Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2012;9."},{"issue":"1\u20132","key":"2789_CR4","first-page":"402","volume":"192","author":"S Koldby","year":"2013","unstructured":"Koldby S, Schou Jensen I. Clinical simulation and workflow by use of two clinical information systems, the electronic health record and digital dictation. Stud Health Technol Inf. 2013;192(1\u20132):402\u20136.","journal-title":"Stud Health Technol Inf"},{"key":"2789_CR5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Abramson EL, Patel V, Malhotra S, Pfoh ER, Nena Osorio S, Cheriff A et al. Physician experiences transitioning between an older versus newer electronic health record for electronic prescribing. Int J Med Inform [Internet]. 2012;81(8):539\u201348. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ijmedinf.2012.02.010","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ijmedinf.2012.02.010"},{"issue":"3","key":"2789_CR6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"144","DOI":"10.1111\/jhq.12072","volume":"39","author":"GB Raglan","year":"2017","unstructured":"Raglan GB, Margolis B, Paulus RA, Schulkin J. Electronic health record adoption among obstetrician\/gynecologists in the United States: physician practices and satisfaction. J Healthc Qual. 2017;39(3):144\u201352.","journal-title":"J Healthc Qual"},{"key":"2789_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Clarke JM, Warren LR, Arora S, Barahona M, Darzi AW. Guiding interoperable electronic health records through patient-sharing networks. npj Digit Med [Internet]. 2018;1(1):1\u20136. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/s41746-018-0072-y","DOI":"10.1038\/s41746-018-0072-y"},{"key":"2789_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Warren LR, Clarke JM, Arora S, Darzi AW. Improving data sharing between acute hospitals in England: an overview of health record system distribution and retrospective observational analysis of inter-hospital transitions of care. BMJ Open [Internet]. 2019;9(12):e031637. http:\/\/bmjopen.bmj.com\/lookup\/doi\/https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmjopen-2019-031637","DOI":"10.1136\/bmjopen-2019-031637"},{"key":"2789_CR9","unstructured":"HIMSS. Interoperability in Healthcare | HIMSS [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2022 Feb 4]. https:\/\/www.himss.org\/resources\/interoperability-healthcare"},{"key":"2789_CR10","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Chang L, Wanner KJ, Kovalsky D, Smith KL, Rhodes KV. It\u2019s Really Overwhelming: Patient perspectives on care coordination. J Am Board Fam Med [Internet]. 2018 Sep 1 [cited 2023 Jun 20];31(5):682\u201390. https:\/\/www.jabfm.org\/content\/31\/5\/682","DOI":"10.3122\/jabfm.2018.05.180034"},{"issue":"4","key":"2789_CR11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"740","DOI":"10.1681\/ASN.V114740","volume":"11","author":"P Arora","year":"2000","unstructured":"Arora P, Kausz AT, Obrador GT, Ruthazer R, Khan S, Jenuleson CS, et al. Hospital utilization among chronic dialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2000;11(4):740\u20136.","journal-title":"J Am Soc Nephrol"},{"issue":"6","key":"2789_CR12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2801","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1523-1755.2005.00752.x","volume":"68","author":"I Gorodetskaya","year":"2005","unstructured":"Gorodetskaya I, Zenios S, McCulloch CE, Bostrom A, Hsu CY, Bindman AB, et al. Health-related quality of life and estimates of utility in chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int. 2005;68(6):2801\u20138.","journal-title":"Kidney Int"},{"key":"2789_CR13","unstructured":"Understanding Patient Data [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2023 Oct 20]. https:\/\/understandingpatientdata.org.uk\/"},{"key":"2789_CR14","unstructured":"Bowling A. Research methods in Health. Mc Graw Hill. 2014. 512 p."},{"key":"2789_CR15","unstructured":"Morgan D. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2012."},{"key":"2789_CR16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Wilkinson S. Focus group methodology: a review. Int J Soc Res Methodol [Internet]. 1998 Jan 10 [cited 2023 Jun 17];1(3):181\u2013203. http:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/abs\/https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/13645579.1998.10846874","DOI":"10.1080\/13645579.1998.10846874"},{"key":"2789_CR17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Booth A, Hannes K, Harden A, Noyes J, Harris J, Tong A. COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies). Guidel Report Heal Res A User\u2019s Man [Internet]. 2014 Aug 22 [cited 2021 Jul 13];214\u201326. https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/full\/https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/9781118715598.ch21","DOI":"10.1002\/9781118715598.ch21"},{"key":"2789_CR18","unstructured":"Charlson. Comorbidity Index (CCI) - MDCalc [Internet]. [cited 2021 Dec 17]. https:\/\/www.mdcalc.com\/charlson-comorbidity-index-cci"},{"key":"2789_CR19","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis [Internet]. 1987 [cited 2023 Jun 22];40(5):373\u201383. https:\/\/pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/3558716\/","DOI":"10.1016\/0021-9681(87)90171-8"},{"key":"2789_CR20","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Carlsen B, Glenton C. What about N? A methodological study of sample-size reporting in focus group studies. BMC Med Res Methodol [Internet]. 2011;11(26):26. http:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed\/21396104","DOI":"10.1186\/1471-2288-11-26"},{"key":"2789_CR21","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Hennink MM, Kaiser BN, Weber MB, Sizes in Focus Group Research. What Influences Saturation? Estimating Sample. Qual Health Res [Internet]. 2019 Jan 10 [cited 2023 Jun 17];29(10):1483\u201396. https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/abs\/10.1177\/1049732318821692?journalCode=qhra","DOI":"10.1177\/1049732318821692"},{"key":"2789_CR22","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Guest G, Namey E, McKenna K. How Many Focus Groups Are Enough? Building an Evidence Base for Nonprobability Sample Sizes. Field methods [Internet]. 2017 Feb 24 [cited 2023 Jun 17];29(1):3\u201322. https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/abs\/10.1177\/1525822X16639015?journalCode=fmxd","DOI":"10.1177\/1525822X16639015"},{"key":"2789_CR23","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"McQuarrie EF, Krueger RA. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. J Mark Res [Internet]. 1989 [cited 2023 Jun 17];26(3):371. Available from: https:\/\/books.google.co.uk\/books?hl=en&lr=&id=8wASBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&ots=XfiMBvcHrV&sig=COJHfw93bTT9vMN7ybvXTVZq7uw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false","DOI":"10.2307\/3172912"},{"key":"2789_CR24","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Tang KC, Davis A. Critical factors in the determination of focus group size. Fam Pract [Internet]. 1995 [cited 2023 Jun 18];12(4):474\u20135. https:\/\/academic.oup.com\/fampra\/article\/12\/4\/474\/741127","DOI":"10.1093\/fampra\/12.4.474"},{"key":"2789_CR25","unstructured":"VOICE. VOICE About Us. [cited 2023 Oct 17];1\u20133. https:\/\/voice-global.org\/for-collaborators"},{"issue":"2","key":"2789_CR26","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"77","DOI":"10.1191\/1478088706qp063oa","volume":"3","author":"V Braun","year":"2006","unstructured":"Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77\u2013101.","journal-title":"Qual Res Psychol"},{"issue":"1","key":"2789_CR27","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"132","DOI":"10.1007\/s11606-018-4708-z","volume":"34","author":"A Legler","year":"2019","unstructured":"Legler A, Price M, Parikh M, Nebeker JR, Ward MC, Wedemeyer L, et al. Effect on VA Patient satisfaction of Provider\u2019s Use of an Integrated Viewer of Multiple Electronic Health Records. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(1):132\u20136.","journal-title":"J Gen Intern Med"},{"key":"2789_CR28","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Kelly YP, Kuperman GJ, Steele DJR, Mendu ML, Interoperability, Patient Electronic Health Record Accessibility. Opportunities to improve Care Delivery for Dialysis patients. American Journal of Kidney Diseases. Volume 76. W.B. Saunders; 2020. pp. 427\u201330.","DOI":"10.1053\/j.ajkd.2019.11.001"},{"key":"2789_CR29","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Hussein R, Crutzen R, Gutenberg J, Kulnik ST, Sareban M, Niebauer J. Patient-generated health data (PGHD) interoperability: An integrative perspective. Public Heal Informatics Proc MIE. 2021. 2021;228\u201332.","DOI":"10.3233\/SHTI210154"},{"key":"2789_CR30","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Sanyer O, Butler JM, Fortenberry K, Webb-Allen T, Ose D. Information sharing via electronic health records in team-based care: the patient perspective. Fam Pract [Internet]. 2021 Jul 28 [cited 2023 Apr 16];38(4):468\u201372. https:\/\/academic.oup.com\/fampra\/article\/38\/4\/468\/6158090","DOI":"10.1093\/fampra\/cmaa145"},{"key":"2789_CR31","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Vermeir P, Degroote S, Vandijck D, Van Tiggelen H, Peleman R, Verhaeghe R et al. The patient perspective on the effects of medical record accessibility: a systematic review. Acta Clin Belgica Int J Clin Lab Med [Internet]. 2017;72(3):186\u201394. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/17843286.2016.1275375","DOI":"10.1080\/17843286.2016.1275375"}],"container-title":["BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1186\/s12911-024-02789-5.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1186\/s12911-024-02789-5\/fulltext.html","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1186\/s12911-024-02789-5.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2024,12,3]],"date-time":"2024-12-03T11:03:40Z","timestamp":1733223820000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/bmcmedinformdecismak.biomedcentral.com\/articles\/10.1186\/s12911-024-02789-5"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2024,12,3]]},"references-count":31,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2024,12]]}},"alternative-id":["2789"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12911-024-02789-5","relation":{"has-preprint":[{"id-type":"doi","id":"10.1101\/2024.01.30.24302031","asserted-by":"object"},{"id-type":"doi","id":"10.21203\/rs.3.rs-4022337\/v1","asserted-by":"object"}]},"ISSN":["1472-6947"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1472-6947","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2024,12,3]]},"assertion":[{"value":"6 March 2024","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"26 November 2024","order":2,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"3 December 2024","order":3,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"order":1,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"Overall ethical approval for this study was granted by the Imperial College Research Ethics Committee (ICREC) (Reference No. 22IC7425). This is a dedicated ethics oversight body at Imperial College London for all health-related research involving human participants. All participants provided written informed consent prior to participating in the study and consented to their focus group sessions being recorded.","order":2,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Ethical approval and consent to particiapte"}},{"value":"All participants provided written informed consent for anonymised quotes from their focus groups to be used in the publication of this study.","order":3,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Consent for publication"}},{"value":"HA is the chief scientific officer of Pre-emptive Health and Medicine at Flagship Pioneering. AD is the executive chair of Pre-emptive Health and Medicine at Flagship Pioneering. All other authors do not have any competing interests.","order":4,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Competing interests"}}],"article-number":"370"}}