Attitudes and perceptions of traditional health practitioners towards documentation of patient health information in their practice in eThekwini Municipality, KwaZulu-Natal, Natal Province, South Africa

Background: Documentation of patient health information in the form of patient medical records (PMRs) is an essential, ethical and regulatory requirement in any healthcare system. African traditional medicine (ATM) exists parallel to biomedicine and continues to play a significant role in primary healthcare of the majority of South Africans. The World Health Organization (WHO) has promoted the integration of ATM into the national health system of South Africa. Patient health information documentation can facilitate this integration, and PMRs promote communication between the two health systems through referrals. Documentation in biomedicine is a clear, compulsory, routine activity, but does not occur regularly or routinely in ATM. Objective: To examine the attitudes and perceptions of traditional health practitioners (THPs) towards documentation of patient health information in their practice. Methods: This quantitative cross-sectional survey involved snowball sampling to recruit THPs in Umlazi Township and rural parts surrounding the township, in Durban, South Africa. A semi-structured questionnaire was used. Quantitative data were analysed using SPSS 25 and the Relative Importance Index (RII) and qualitative data were analysed using Excel for themes. Results: Sampling resulted in 248 THPs of whom 178 (72%) were females. The RII ranked the factors that negatively influenced the participants’ attitudes towards documentation of patient health information. Of the 178 females who participated in the study, 129 (72.5%) showed their willingness to introduce documentation in their practice. Of the 127 participants with less than 10 years of practice experience, 126 (99.2%) agreed to the importance of introducing PMRs in their practice. The majority of participants perceived documentation of patient health information as vital to improve their practice. A prominent theme was that the THPs regarded documenting patient health information as important and effective in their practice. Conclusion: More than half of participants showed positive attitudes and perceptions towards documenting of patient health information in ATM. The majority of the participants in this study acknowledged the importance of introducing documentation of patient health information in their practice even though they lacked experience and more knowledge. This reflects a need for essential intervention in developing specialised tools to begin promoting documentation of patient health information in ATM.

The use of patient health information outside the circle of care: Consent preferences of patients from a large academic cancer centre.

e14122 Background: Massive volumes of patient health information (PHI) are required to realize the anticipated benefits of artificial intelligence in future clinical medicine. To maintain public trust in medical research however, consent policies must evolve to reflect contemporary patient preferences. Methods: From January-December 2019, patients attending clinics at a large academic cancer centre were invited to complete a 27-item iPad survey on consent preferences. Survey items focused on: (a) broad vs. specific consent; (b) opt-in vs. opt-out approaches for research contact; (c) comfort sharing with different recipients; (d) perceptions on commercialization; and (e) options to track information use and study results. Demographic questions addressed cancer type, treatment stage, age, gender, ethnicity, education level, and household income. Results: A total of 222 participants were included in the analysis (112 males, 108 females; 2 rather not say); 83% were comfortable sharing PHI with researchers at their own hospital. While 56% of patients preferred broad consent, 38% preferred to be contacted with study details and asked to consent every time (specific consent); 6% prefer not to share at all. Younger patients ( < 49 years) most often chose specific consent (50%); significantly more than those 75+ years (24%; p < .05). Younger patients ( < 49 years) were also significantly more uncomfortable than older patients (50+ years) sharing even within their own hospital (13% uncomfortable vs. 1% uncomfortable; p < .05). A significant majority of patients (63%, p = .0001) preferred to be asked for permission before being entered into a contact pool vs. automatic entry with opportunity to opt-out. The majority of patients were uncomfortable sharing PHI with commercial enterprises (51% uncomfortable, 27% comfortable, 22% neutral). A significant majority expressed the desire to track who is using their PHI (61%, p < .0001), and be notified regarding study results (70%, p < .0001). Conclusions: While most patients were willing to share their PHI with researchers at their own hospital, many preferred a transparent and reciprocal consent process. These data also suggest a generational shift, wherein younger patients preferred more informed consent options. Modernizing consent policies to reflect increased patient interest in the exercise of their autonomy is crucial in fostering sustained public engagement in medical research.

Big data or big risk: general practitioner, practice nurse and practice manager attitudes to providing de-identified patient health data from electronic medical records to researchers

Research utilising de-identified patient health information extracted from electronic medical records (EMRs) from general practices has steadily grown in recent years in response to calls to increase use of health data for research and other secondary purposes in Australia. Little is known about the views of key primary care personnel on this issue, which are important, as they may influence whether practices agree to provide EMR data for research. This exploratory qualitative study investigated the attitudes and beliefs of general practitioners (GPs), practice managers (PMs) and practice nurses (PNs) around sharing de-identified EMR patient health information with researchers. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 participants (6 GPs, 3 PMs and 2 PNs) recruited via purposive sampling from general practices in Victoria, Australia. Transcripts were coded and thematically analysed. Participants were generally enthusiastic about research utilising de-identified health information extracted from EMRs for altruistic reasons, including: positive effects on primary care research, clinical practice and population health outcomes. Concerns raised included patient privacy and data breaches, third-party use of extracted data and patient consent. These findings can provide guidance to researchers and policymakers in designing and implementing projects involving de-identified health information extracted from EMRs.

Barriers and facilitators for implementation of electronic consultations (eConsult) to enhance access to specialist care: a scoping review

IntroductionElectronic consultation (eConsult)—provider-to-provider electronic asynchronous exchanges of patient health information at a distance—is emerging as a potential tool to improve the interface between primary care providers and specialists. Despite growing evidence that eConsult has clinical benefits, it is not widely adopted. We investigated factors influencing the adoption and implementation of eConsult services.MethodsWe applied established methods to guide the review, and the recently published Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews to report our findings. We searched five electronic databases and the grey literature for relevant studies. Two reviewers independently screened titles and full texts to identify studies that reported barriers to and/or facilitators of eConsult (asynchronous (store-and-forward) use of telemedicine to exchange patient health information between two providers (primary and secondary) at a distance using secure infrastructure). We extracted data on study characteristics and key barriers and facilitators were analysed thematically and classified using the Quadruple Aim framework taxonomy. No date or language restrictions were applied.ResultsAmong the 2579 publications retrieved, 130 studies met eligibility for the review. We identified and summarised key barriers to and facilitators of eConsult adoption and implementation across four domains: provider, patient, healthcare system and cost. Key barriers were increased workload for providers, privacy concerns and insufficient reimbursement for providers. Main facilitators were remote residence location, timely responses from specialists, utilisation of referral coordinators, addressing medicolegal concerns and incentives for providers to use eConsult.ConclusionThere are multiple barriers to and facilitators of eConsult adoption across the domains of Quadruple Aim framework. Our findings will inform the development of practice tools to support the wider adoption and scalability of eConsult implementation.