The provision and impact of online patient access to their electronic health records (EHR) and transactional services on the quality and safety of health care: systematic review protocol

Freda Mold, Beverley Ellis, Simon de Lusignan, Aziz Sheikh, Jeremy C Wyatt, Mary Cavill, Georgios Michalakidis, Fiona Barker, Azeem Majeed, Tom Quinn, Phil Koczan, Theo Avanitis, Toto Anne Gronlund, Christina Franco, Mary McCarthy, Zoe Renton, Umesh Chauhan, Hannah Blakey, Neha Kataria, Simon Jones, Imran Rafi


Background Innovators have piloted improvements in communication, changed patterns of practice and patient empowerment from online access to electronic health records (EHR). International studies of online services, such as prescription ordering, online appointment booking and secure communications with primary care, show good uptake of email consultations, accessing test results and booking appointments; when technologies and business process are in place. Online access and transactional services are due to be rolled out across England by 2015; this review seeks to explore the impact of online access to health records and other online services on the quality and safety of primary health care.

Objective To assess the factors that may affect the provision of online patient access to their EHR and transactional services, and the impact of such access on the quality and safety of health care.

Method 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.


electronic health records, general practice; medical informatics; medical records; patient access to records; primary care; transactional services

Full Text:



Morris L and Milne B. Enabling Patients to Access HER Guidance for Health Professionals. London: Royal College of General Practitioners, Record Access Collaborative. Version 1.0, September 2010.

Honeyman A, Cox B and Fisher B. Potential impacts of patient access to their electronic care. records. Informatics in Primary Care 2005;13:55–60.


Carman D and Britten N. Confidentiality of medical records: the patients' perspective. British Journal of General Practice 1995;45:485–8.

PMid:7546873 PMCid:PMC1239373

Mandl KD, Szolovits P and Kohane IS. Public standards and patients' control: how to keep electronic medical records accessible but private. BMJ 2001;322(7281):283–7.

Wiljer D, Urowitz S, Apatu E et al. Canadian Committee for Patient Accessible Health Records. Patient accessible EHR: exploring recommendations for successful implementation strategies. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2008;10(4):e34.

PMid:18974036 PMCid:PMC2629367

Tiik M. Rules and access rights of the Estonian integrated e-Health system. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 2010;156:245–56.


Beard L, Schein R, Morra D, Wilson K and Keelan J. The challenges in making EHR accessible to patients. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2012; 19:116–20.

PMid:22120207 PMCid:PMC3240757

Cross M. BMA warns against letting patients have access to their electronic records. BMJ 2011 Jan 12;342:d206. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d206.

Quantin C, Fassa M, Coatrieux G, Breton V, Boire JY and Allaert FA. Giving patients secure << Google-like >> access to their medical record. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 2008;137:61–7.


Gardiner R. The transition from 'informed patient' care to 'patient informed' care. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 2008;137:241–56.


Greenhalgh T, Hinder S, Stramer K, Bratan T and Russell J. Adoption, non-adoption, and abandonment of a personal electronic health record: case study of HealthSpace. BMJ 2010 Nov 16;341:c5814. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c5814.

Fisher B, Fitton R, Poirier C and Stables D. Patient record access – the time has come. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 2006;121:162–7.


Ruland CM, Brynhi H, Andersen R and Bryhni T. Developing a shared electronic health record for patients and clinicians. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 2008;136:57–62.


Hannan A. Providing patients online access to their primary care computerised medical records: a case study of sharing and caring. Informatics in Primary Care 2010;18:41–9.


Pyper C, Amery J, Watson M and Crook C. Patients' experiences when accessing their on-line electronic patient records in primary care. British Journal of General Practice 2004;54(498):38–43.

PMid:14965405 PMCid:PMC1314776

Bourgeois FC, Taylor PL, Emans SJ, Nigrin DJ and Mandl KD. Whose personal control? Creating private, personally controlled health records for pediatric and adolescent patients. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2008;15:737–43.

PMid:18755989 PMCid:PMC2585529

Katz SJ and Moyer CA. The emerging role of online communication between patients and their providers. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2004;19:978–83.

PMid:15333064 PMCid:PMC1492520

Fox M. Directgov 2010 and Beyond: revolution not evolution. Race Online 2012 14 October 2010; 3.

Silvestre AL, Sue VM and Allen JY. If you build it, will they come? The Kaiser Permanente model of online health care. Health Affairs (Millwood) 2009 Mar–Apr; 28(2):334–44.


Nazi KM and Woods SS. MyHealtheVet PHR: a description of users and patient portal use. AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings 2008 Nov 6:1182.


Steinschaden T, Petersson G and Astrand B. Physicians' attitudes towards eprescribing: a comparative web survey in Austria and Sweden. Informatics in Primary Care 2009;17:241–8.


Martínez-Caro E, Cegarra-Navarro JG and Solano-Lorente M. Understanding patient e-loyalty toward online health care services. Health Care Management Review 2013;38(1):61–70.


Shoveller J, Knight R, Davis W, Gilbert M and Ogilvie G. Online sexual health services: examining youth's perspectives. Canadian Journal of Public Health 2012;103:14–18.


Pohjanoksa-Mäntylä M, Saari JK, Närhi U et al. How and why do people with depression access and utilize online drug information: a qualitative study. Journal of Affective Disorders 2009;114(1–3):333–9.


Liu CT, Yeh YT, Lee TI and Li YC. Observations on online services for diabetes management. Diabetes Care 2005;28:2807–8.


Wiljer D, Leonard KJ, Urowitz S et al. The anxious wait: assessing the impact of patient accessible EHRs for breast cancer patients. BMC Medical Informatics in Decision Making 2010;10:46.

PMid:20809950 PMCid:PMC2940864

The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH). Improving the Standard of Care of Children with Kidney Disease Through Paediatric Nephrology Networks. London: RCPCH, August 2011;19–20.

Wiljer D, Urowitz S, Apatu E et al. Patient accessible EHR: exploring recommendations for successful implementation strategies. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2008;10(4):e34.

PMid:18974036 PMCid:PMC2629367

Brook RH, McGlynn EA and Cleary PD. Quality of health care. Part 2: measuring quality of care. New England Journal of Medicine 1996;335:966–70.


US Department of Health and Human Sciences. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) definition of quality: archive.

Department of Health. High Quality Care for All. NHS next stage review final report. London: Department of Health, June 2008;47.

Department of Health. The NHS Outcomes Framework 2012/13. London; Department of Health, 7 December 2011; 5.

Chapman JL, Zechel A, Carter YH and Abbott S. Systematic review of recent innovations in service provision to improve access to primary care. British Journal of General Practice 2004;54(502):374–81.

PMid:15113523 PMCid:PMC1266174

Campbell SM, Roland MO and Buetow S. Defining quality of care. Social Science & Medicine 2000; 51:1611–25.

Seddon ME, Marshall MN, Campbell SM and Roland MO. Systematic review of studies of quality of clinical care in general practice in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. Quality in Health Care 2001;10:152–8.

PMid:11533422 PMCid:PMC1743427

Molokhia M, Tanna S and Bell D. Improving reporting of adverse drug reactions: systematic review. Clinical Epidemiology 2009;1:75–92.

PMid:20865089 PMCid:PMC2943157

Pearson SA, Moxey A, Robertson J et al. Do computerised clinical decision support systems for prescribing change practice? A systematic review of the literature (1990–2007). BMC Health Services Research 2009;9:154.

PMid:19715591 PMCid:PMC2744674

Weir CR, Staggers N and Laukert T. Reviewing the impact of computerized provider order entry on clinical outcomes: the quality of systematic reviews. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2012;81:219–31.


Kruse RL, Koopman RJ, Wakefield BJ et al. Internet use by primary care patients: where is the digital divide? Family Medicine 2012;44:342–7.


Yamin CK, Emani S, Williams DH et al. The digital divide in adoption and use of a personal health record. Archives of Internal Medicine 2011;171:568–74. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.34.

NHS Futures Forum. Information, 2012.

Department of Health. The Power of Information: putting us all in control of the health and care information we need. London: Department of Health, 2012; 7. Information

Goldzweig CL, Towfigh AA, Paige NM et al. Systematic Review: secure messaging between providers and patients, and patients' access to their own medical record. Evidence on health outcomes, satisfaction, efficiency and attitudes. VA-ESP Project #05–226, 2012.

de Lusignan S, Pearce C, Kumarapeli P et al. Reporting observational studies of the use of information tech nology in the clinical consultation. A position statement from the IMIA Primary Health Care Informatics Working Group (IMIA PCI WG). Yearbook of Medical Informatics 2011;6:39–47.


de Lusignan S. The barriers to clinical coding in general practice: a literature review. Medical Informatics and the Internet in Medicine 2005;30(2):89–97.


Lau F, Price M and Keshavjee K. From benefits evaluation to clinical adoption: making sense of health information system success in Canada. Healthcare Quarterly 2011;14:39–45.

Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press, 1983.

Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P and Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Quarterly 2004;82:581–629.

PMid:15595944 PMCid:PMC2690184

Liebetrau A. Measures of Association. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1983.

Orwin RG. Evaluating coding decisions. In: Cooper H and Hedges LV (eds) The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1994.

Higgins JPT and Deeks JJ. Selecting studies and collecting data. In: Higgins JPT and Green S (eds) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.0.1 [updated September 2008]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008.

Schünemann H, Brożek J and Oxman A (eds). GRADE Handbook for Grading Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendation. Version 3.2 [updated March 2009]. The GRADE Working Group, 2009.

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336(7650): 924–6.

PMid:18436948 PMCid:PMC2335261

GRADE Working Group. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011;64:401–6.


The Cochrane Collaboration. Open Learning Material, 2002.

Higgins JPT and Green S (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

This is an open access journal, which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or their institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal starting from Volume 21 without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open accessFor permission regarding papers published in previous volumes, please contact us.

Privacy statement: The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.

Online ISSN 2058-4563 - Print ISSN 2058-4555. Published by BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT