BACKGROUND: The NORDeHEALTH project studies patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) in Estonia, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Such country comparisons require an analysis of the sociotechnical context of these services. Although sociotechnical analyses of PAEHR services have been carried out in the past, a framework specifically tailored to in-depth cross-country analysis has not been developed.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop and evaluate a method for a sociotechnical analysis of PAEHRs that advances a framework for sociotechnical analysis of eHealth solutions first presented by Sittig and Singh. This first article in a series presents the development of the method and a cross-country comparison of the contextual factors that enable PAEHR access and use.
METHODS: The dimensions of the framework for sociotechnical analysis were thoroughly discussed and extended in a series of workshops with international stakeholders, all being eHealth researchers focusing on PAEHRs. All countries were represented in the working group to make sure that important national perspectives were covered. A spreadsheet with relevant questions related to the studied services and the various dimensions of the sociotechnical framework was constructed and distributed to the 4 participating countries, and the project participants researched various national sources to provide the relevant data for the comparisons in the 10 sociotechnical dimensions.
RESULTS: In total, 3 dimensions were added to the methodology of Sittig and Singh to separate clinical content from features and functions of PAEHRs and demonstrate basic characteristics of the different countries regarding national and regional steering of health care and information and communications technology developments. The final framework contained the following dimensions: metadata; hardware and software computing infrastructure; features and functions; clinical content shared with patients; human-computer interface; people; workflow and communication; the health care organization\'s internal policies, procedures, and culture; national rules, regulations, and incentives; system measurement and monitoring; and health care system context. The dimensions added during the study mostly concerned background information needed for cross-country comparisons in particular. Several similarities were identified among the compared countries, especially regarding hardware and software computing infrastructure. All countries had, for example, one national access point, and patients are provided a PAEHR automatically. Most of the differences could be identified in the health care system context dimension. One important difference concerned the governing of information and communications technology development, where different levels (state, region, and municipality) were responsible in different countries.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first large-scale international sociotechnical analysis of services for patients to access their electronic health records; this study compared services in Estonia, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. A methodology for such an analysis was developed and is presented to enable comparison studies in other national contexts to enable future implementations and evaluations of PAEHRs.

UNASSIGNED: An expanded access clinical trials (EACTs) provides exceptional patient access to investigational new drugs for life-threatening diseases for which no effective treatment exists. Based on public information, we have studied EACTs since 2016, when the EACT system was launched in Japan. In this study, we investigated the reality of EACTs by interviewing pharmaceutical companies and clarifying how they view them.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 pharmaceutical companies developing new drugs. This study aims to clarify the status of EACTs, so we selected pharmaceutical companies that develop innovative drugs for which they may perform EACTs (however, experience in conducting EACTs was optional).
UNASSIGNED: All those surveyed were aware of EACTs. Twelve access clinical trials were conducted, and the EACT implementation rate for pivotal clinical trials was 2.5%. The most common reason for implementing an EACT was \"requests from physicians and medical institutions\" (nine companies, 90.0%), and the most common reason for not implementing an EACT was \"the applicability of the system\" (five companies). Improvements to EACTs were identified by eight companies (80.0%); financial assistance by six companies (60.0%); reducing the scope of data to be collected and simplifying the procedure by six companies (60.0%). Seven companies (70.0%) responded that a Single Patient Investigational New Drug Application should be conducted, suggesting that the system should be revised.
UNASSIGNED: An interview survey of ten pharmaceutical companies developing new drugs in Japan regarding expanded access clinical trials indicated that there were issues with the system. Many wished to improve the system by establishing a single patient access system, supporting resources, and simplifying procedures. Based on our interviews with 10 Japanese pharmaceutical companies, it was found that the system needed to be improved by introducing a single patient access system, providing supporting resources, and simplifying procedures. In Japan, about eight years have passed since EACT was established, and it appears a revision of the EACT legislation is due.

BACKGROUND: First Contact Physiotherapy Practitioners (FCPPs) provide expert care for patients with musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions in General Practice. Access to FCPPs can facilitate timely care and efficient use of health services. However, there is little evidence about patient experiences of accessing FCPP appointments.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences of patients with MSK conditions who have accessed an FCPP appointment in a General Practice setting in the UK.
METHODS: Exploratory qualitative design.
METHODS: Patients with MSK conditions who had experience of accessing FCPP appointments were recruited via social media. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and recorded via MS Teams. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Of 13 patients interviewed, there were 10 females and three males, with an age range between 20 and 80 years. The main themes identified were: (1) Awareness of FCPP, (2) Access routes, (3) Facilitators to access, (4) Barriers to access, (5) Likelihood of re-accessing FCPP. Awareness of FCPP was generally low amongst participants. There were a variety of routes to access FCPP appointments; some were felt to be sub-optimal by participants. Facilitators included quick/easy access to FCPP. Barriers included difficulty contacting General Practitioner (GP) surgeries and public perception of needing to see a GP initially. The likelihood of re-consultation with a FCPP was low when participants had disappointing care experiences.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides new evidence about patient experiences of accessing FCPP. It explores positive and negative aspects of access from patients\' perspectives. It also highlights areas for improvement in terms of GP staff/patient awareness and understanding of FCPP.

BACKGROUND: In many large health centers, patients face long appointment wait times and difficulties accessing care. Last-minute cancellations and patient no-shows leave unfilled slots in a clinician\'s schedule, exacerbating delays in care from poor access. The mismatch between the supply of outpatient appointments and patient demand has led health systems to adopt many tools and strategies to minimize appointment no-show rates and fill open slots left by patient cancellations.
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated an electronic health record (EHR)-based self-scheduling tool, Fast Pass, at a large academic medical center to understand the impacts of the tool on the ability to fill cancelled appointment slots, patient access to earlier appointments, and clinical revenue from visits that may otherwise have gone unscheduled.
METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we extracted Fast Pass appointment offers and scheduling data, including patient demographics, from the EHR between June 18, 2022, and March 9, 2023. We analyzed the outcomes of Fast Pass offers (accepted, declined, expired, and unavailable) and the outcomes of scheduled appointments resulting from accepted Fast Pass offers (completed, canceled, and no-show). We stratified outcomes based on appointment specialty. For each specialty, the patient service revenue from appointments filled by Fast Pass was calculated using the visit slots filled, the payer mix of the appointments, and the contribution margin by payer.
RESULTS: From June 18 to March 9, 2023, there were a total of 60,660 Fast Pass offers sent to patients for 21,978 available appointments. Of these offers, 6603 (11%) were accepted across all departments, and 5399 (8.9%) visits were completed. Patients were seen a median (IQR) of 14 (4-33) days sooner for their appointments. In a multivariate logistic regression model with primary outcome Fast Pass offer acceptance, patients who were aged 65 years or older (vs 20-40 years; P=.005 odds ratio [OR] 0.86, 95% CI 0.78-0.96), other ethnicity (vs White; P<.001, OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77-0.91), primarily Chinese speakers (P<.001; OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49-0.79), and other language speakers (vs English speakers; P=.001; OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57-0.87) were less likely to accept an offer. Fast Pass added 2576 patient service hours to the clinical schedule, with a median (IQR) of 251 (216-322) hours per month. The estimated value of physician fees from these visits scheduled through 9 months of Fast Pass scheduling in professional fees at our institution was US $3 million.
CONCLUSIONS: Self-scheduling tools that provide patients with an opportunity to schedule into cancelled or unfilled appointment slots have the potential to improve patient access and efficiently capture additional revenue from filling unfilled slots. The demographics of the patients accepting these offers suggest that such digital tools may exacerbate inequities in access.

BACKGROUND: Despite growing evidence of the potential of arts-based modalities to translate knowledge and spark discussion on complex issues, applications to health policy are rare. This study explored the potential of a research-based theatrical video to increase public capacity and motivation to engage with the complex issues that make Emergency Department wait times such an intractable problem.
METHODS: Larry Saves the Canadian Healthcare System is a digital musical micro-series developed from extensive research examining system-level causes of Emergency crowding and the ineffectiveness of prevailing approaches. We released individual episodes and a revised full-length version on YouTube, using organic promotion strategies and paid advertising. We used YouTube Analytics to track views, engagement and viewer demographics, and content-analyzed viewer comments. We also conducted five university-based screenings; 92 students completed questionnaires, rating Larry on 16 descriptors using a 7-point Likert scale.
RESULTS: From June 2022 through May 2023, Larry garnered over 100,000 views (76,752 of the full-length version, 35,535 of episodes), 1329 likes, 2780 shares, and 139 comments. Views and watch time were higher among women and positively associated with age. Among YouTube comments, the predominating themes were praise for the video and criticism of the healthcare system. Many commenters applauded the show\'s accuracy, humor, and/or resonance with their experience; several shared healthcare horror stories. Students overwhelmingly agreed with all positive and disagreed with all negative descriptors, and nearly unanimously deemed the video informative, thought-provoking, and entertaining. Most also affirmed that it had increased their knowledge, interest, and confidence to participate in discussions about healthcare issues. Neither gender, primary language, nor employment in healthcare predicted ratings, but graduate students and those 25+ years old evaluated the video most positively.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the promise of research-informed musical satire to inform and invigorate discourse on an urgent health policy problem. Larry has reached tens of thousands of viewers, garnered excellent feedback, and received high student ratings. Further research should directly assess educational and behavioural outcomes and explore what facilitative strategies could maximize this knowledge translation product\'s potential to foster informed, impactful policy dialogue.

Patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) hold promise for empowering patients, but their impact may vary between mental and somatic health care. Medical professionals and ethicists have expressed concerns about the potential challenges of PAEHRs for patients, especially those receiving mental health care.
This study aims to investigate variations in the experiences of online access to electronic health records (EHRs) among persons receiving mental and somatic health care, as well as to understand how these experiences and perceptions vary among those receiving mental health care at different levels of point of care.
Using Norwegian data from the NORDeHEALTH 2022 Patient Survey, we conducted a cross-sectional descriptive analysis of service use and perceptions of perceived mistakes, omissions, and offensive comments by mental and somatic health care respondents. Content analysis was used to analyze free-text responses to understand how respondents experienced the most serious errors in their EHR.
Among 9505 survey participants, we identified 2008 mental health care respondents and 7086 somatic health care respondents. A higher percentage of mental health care respondents (1385/2008, 68.97%) reported that using PAEHR increased their trust in health care professionals compared with somatic health care respondents (4251/7086, 59.99%). However, a significantly larger proportion (P<.001) of mental health care respondents (976/2008, 48.61%) reported perceiving errors in their EHR compared with somatic health care respondents (1893/7086, 26.71%). Mental health care respondents also reported significantly higher odds (P<.001) of identifying omissions (758/2008, 37.75%) and offensive comments (729/2008, 36.3%) in their EHR compared with the somatic health care group (1867/7086, 26.35% and 826/7086, 11.66%, respectively). Mental health care respondents in hospital inpatient settings were more likely to identify errors (398/588, 67.7%; P<.001) and omissions (251/588, 42.7%; P<.001) than those in outpatient care (errors: 422/837, 50.4% and omissions: 336/837, 40.1%; P<.001) and primary care (errors: 32/100, 32% and omissions: 29/100, 29%; P<.001). Hospital inpatients also reported feeling more offended (344/588, 58.5%; P<.001) by certain content in their EHR compared with respondents in primary (21/100, 21%) and outpatient care (287/837, 34.3%) settings. Our qualitative findings showed that both mental and somatic health care respondents identified the most serious errors in their EHR in terms of medical history, communication, diagnosis, and medication.
Most mental and somatic health care respondents showed a positive attitude toward PAEHRs. However, mental health care respondents, especially those with severe and chronic concerns, expressed a more critical attitude toward certain content in their EHR compared with somatic health care respondents. A PAEHR can provide valuable information and foster trust, but it requires careful attention to the use of clinical terminology to ensure accurate, nonjudgmental documentation, especially for persons belonging to health care groups with unique sensitivities.

Although many surveys have been conducted on patients accessing their own health records in recent years, there is a limited amount of nationwide cross-country data available on patients\' views and preferences. To address this gap, an international survey of patient users was conducted in the Nordic eHealth project, NORDeHEALTH.
We aimed to investigate the sociodemographic characteristics and experiences of patients who accessed their electronic health records (EHRs) through national patient portals in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Estonia.
A cross-sectional web-based survey was distributed using the national online health portals. The target participants were patients who accessed the national patient portals at the start of 2022 and who were aged ≥15 years. The survey included a mixture of close-ended and free-text questions about participant sociodemographics, usability experience, experiences with health care and the EHR, reasons for reading health records online, experience with errors, omissions and offense, opinions about security and privacy, and the usefulness of portal functions. In this paper, we summarized the data on participant demographics, past experience with health care, and the patient portal through descriptive statistics.
In total, 29,334 users completed the survey, of which 9503 (32.40%) were from Norway, 13,008 (44.35%) from Sweden, 4713 (16.07%) from Finland, and 2104 (7.17%) from Estonia. National samples were comparable according to reported gender, with about two-thirds identifying as women (19,904/29,302, 67.93%). Age distributions were similar across the countries, but Finland had older users while Estonia had younger users. The highest attained education and presence of health care education varied among the national samples. In all 4 countries, patients most commonly rated their health as \"fair\" (11,279/29,302, 38.48%). In Estonia, participants were more often inclined to rate their health positively, whereas Norway and Sweden had the highest proportion of negative health ratings. Across the whole sample, most patients received some care in the last 2 years (25,318/29,254, 86.55%). Mental health care was more common (6214/29,254, 21.24%) than oncological care (3664/29,254, 12.52%). Overall, most patients had accessed their health record \"2 to 9 times\" (11,546/29,306, 39.4%), with the most frequent users residing in Sweden, where about one-third of patients accessed it \"more than 20 times\" (4571/13,008, 35.14%).
This is the first large-scale international survey to compare patient users\' sociodemographics and experiences with accessing their EHRs. Although the countries are in close geographic proximity and demonstrate similar advancements in giving their residents online records access, patient users in this survey differed. We will continue to investigate patients\' experiences and opinions about national patient-accessible EHRs through focused analyses of the national and combined data sets from the NORDeHEALTH 2022 Patient Survey.

Patient flow through health services is increasingly recognized as a system issue, yet the flow literature has focused overwhelmingly on localized interventions, with limited examination of system-level causes or remedies. Research suggests that intractable flow problems may reflect a basic misalignment between service offerings and population needs, requiring fundamental system redesign. However, little is known about health systems\' approaches to population-capacity misalignment, and guidance for system redesign remains underdeveloped.
This qualitative study, part of a broader investigation of patient flow in urban Western Canada, explored health-system strategies to address or prevent population-capacity misalignment. We conducted in-depth interviews with a purposive sample of managers in 10 jurisdictions across 4 provinces (N = 300), spanning all healthcare sectors and levels of management. We used the constant comparative method to develop an understanding of relevant strategies and derive principles for system design.
All regions showed evidence of pervasive population-capacity misalignment. The most superficial level of response - mutual accommodation (case-by-case problem solving) - was most prevalent; capacity (re)allocation occurred less frequently; population redefinition most rarely. Participants\' insights yielded a general principle: Define populations on the basis of clusters of co-occurring need. However, defining such clusters demands a difficult balance between narrowness/rigidity and breadth/flexibility. Deeper analysis suggested a further principle: Populations that can be divided into homogeneous subgroups experiencing similar needs (eg, surgical patients) are best served by narrow/ rigid models; heterogeneous populations featuring diverse constellations of need (eg, frail older adults) require broad/ flexible models.
To remedy population-capacity misalignment, health system planners should determine whether clusters of population need are separable vs. fused, select an appropriate service model for each population, allocate sufficient capacity, and only then promote mutual accommodation to address exceptions. Overreliance on case-by-case solutions to systemic problems ensures the persistence of population-capacity misalignment.

BACKGROUND: The collection, storage and exchange of medical information are becoming increasingly complex. More parties are involved in this process, and the data are expected to serve many different purposes beside patient care. This raises several ethical questions regarding privacy, data ownership, security and confidentiality. It is vital to consider patients\' moral attitudes and preferences in this digital information exchange. The voice of vulnerable patients is rarely heard in research addressing these questions. This study aims to address this void.
METHODS: Fourteen vulnerable patients without prior experience with patient portal systems were interviewed for this study. First, participants were introduced to the portal and given time to read their personal medical data. Afterwards, semi-structured interviews were conducted and analysed thematically to explore participants\' first experience with the portal and their views on sharing medical information with care providers and other parties.
RESULTS: Data analysis resulted in four themes: barriers to and benefits of portal access, emotional responses to reading medical information, diverging views on sharing information with third parties and balancing granular control and the best possible care. First, participants appreciated access to their health information in the portal despite experiencing obstacles. Second, reading medical information online could evoke emotional responses. Third, patients were generally unaware of the meaning and value of medical data to third parties, resulting in inconsistent views on data sharing. Finally, although patients generally supported granular control, they were willing to give up on their autonomy if that would ensure them to receive the best possible care.
CONCLUSIONS: Patient portal design should take into consideration the obstacles that discourage vulnerable patients\' access and hamper meaningful use. There is a need for more transparency on secondary use of medical data by third parties. Patients should be better informed about the potential consequences of sharing data with them.

Evidence suggests that Greece is among the European countries with increased trend in HCV prevalence among injecting drug users (IDUs) from 2008 to 2014. Nonetheless, the access of IDUs to treatment for Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) is very limited while the risk of co-infection and transmission remains high. In an effort to better understand the inhibitors to HCV treatment, the present study aimed to investigate the main barriers to access in a sample of IDUs.
The cross-sectional study was carried out between July and September 2015 using a 23-items questionnaire. Participants were recruited from urban primary services, mobile health vans, community health services, day-care centers as well as during street work, located in Athens, Greece. Inclusion criteria were age above 18 years, understanding and speaking Greek sufficiently, HCV diagnosis, intravenous drug use. Data collection was carried out by health professionals of Praksis, a non-governmental organization. For the comparisons of proportions chi-square and Fisher\'s exact tests were used.
The study sample consisted of 101 HCV patients, 68% male. More than 80% of study participants experienced barriers in accessing their doctor and medication during the past 12 months. The most common obstacles in accessing a doctor were \"delay in making the appointment and \"difficulties in going to the doctor due to health condition or lack of means of transport\". Access to physician or medication was not differed according to gender, but significant differences were found according to economic status and health insurance coverage. 56.1% of participants reported loss or treatment delay due to barriers to treatment. The majority of participants had deteriorated financial status, health status, access to health services and medication, higher financial burden for health services, worse mental health and lower adherence to medical instructions in 2015 compared to 2009.
The findings from the present study revealed that the vast majority of IDUs experience significant barriers in seeking HCV care in Greece, thus highlighting the need for immediate action in this particular area due to the high risk of co-infection and transmission.