Radiography (London, England : 1995) · 2026
Independent patient access to imaging digital health records: Oncology patients' and healthcare professionals' views and preferences.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ribeiro A S F, van Driel M H E, Husson O, Oyen W J G, Messiou C, van der Graaf W T A
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: To explore the perspectives of patients and healthcare professionals (HCP) in a specialist oncology centre regarding independent patient access to imaging results through Digital Health Records (DHR).
METHODS: A single-centre mixed methods service evaluation (SE) was developed and conducted at a tertiary oncology centre. The service evaluation comprised online questionnaires and semi-structured interviews with oncology patients and three HCP groups involved in cancer care. Qualitative data was analysed using an inductive thematic analysis, with quantitative data analysis consisting of descriptive summary statistics and tests for group differences.
RESULTS: A total of 131 questionnaires (Patients n = 41; Radiographers n = 35; Radiologists n = 14; Oncology team n = 41) and 32 semi-structured interviews were completed. Patient qualitative analysis highlighted three main themes, i) information access - oncology patients want direct access to their imaging information; ii) autonomy - access to information as per their preferences, preferably prior to clinic appointments and iii) accessibility - imaging reports and information should be clear and understandable. HCP's overall qualitative analysis underlines a support towards independent patient access, however, with concerns raised, particularly among radiologists, about potential misinterpretation leading to increased patient anxiety. Quantitative analysis demonstrated that most patients (98%) favoured independent access to reports and images, with 76% preferring immediate availability. In contrast, 80% of HCP recommended access only after clinical discussion. Lay summary report formats were viewed positively by 85% of patients and 63% of HCP.
CONCLUSION: Patients and HCP agreed that sharing imaging reports is desirable, however they differed in views regarding timing of release, highlighting the need to balance patient preferences with clinical context.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: As DHR adoption expands alongside independent patient access, these insights can inform the design of accessible, safe, and patient-centred imaging data sharing in oncology.
METHODS: A single-centre mixed methods service evaluation (SE) was developed and conducted at a tertiary oncology centre. The service evaluation comprised online questionnaires and semi-structured interviews with oncology patients and three HCP groups involved in cancer care. Qualitative data was analysed using an inductive thematic analysis, with quantitative data analysis consisting of descriptive summary statistics and tests for group differences.
RESULTS: A total of 131 questionnaires (Patients n = 41; Radiographers n = 35; Radiologists n = 14; Oncology team n = 41) and 32 semi-structured interviews were completed. Patient qualitative analysis highlighted three main themes, i) information access - oncology patients want direct access to their imaging information; ii) autonomy - access to information as per their preferences, preferably prior to clinic appointments and iii) accessibility - imaging reports and information should be clear and understandable. HCP's overall qualitative analysis underlines a support towards independent patient access, however, with concerns raised, particularly among radiologists, about potential misinterpretation leading to increased patient anxiety. Quantitative analysis demonstrated that most patients (98%) favoured independent access to reports and images, with 76% preferring immediate availability. In contrast, 80% of HCP recommended access only after clinical discussion. Lay summary report formats were viewed positively by 85% of patients and 63% of HCP.
CONCLUSION: Patients and HCP agreed that sharing imaging reports is desirable, however they differed in views regarding timing of release, highlighting the need to balance patient preferences with clinical context.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: As DHR adoption expands alongside independent patient access, these insights can inform the design of accessible, safe, and patient-centred imaging data sharing in oncology.