Skip to main content

Does Online Access to Medical Records Help Patients and Improve the Quality of Healthcare?

There was a lot of discussion in the government’s 10 year health plan about digital interventions such as giving people online access to their medical records. But does this improve healthcare delivery and clinical outcomes? This was the topic of our recent systematic review published in the journal BMJ Quality and Safety. We found that giving people online access to their medical records increased self-reported patient-centredness and improved some aspects of patient safety. But many questions about the benefits of online access remain unanswered. 

The Good News: Empowering Patients

On the positive side, we found clear evidence that giving people online access to their medical records increased self-reported patient-centeredness. What does that mean in simple terms? Patients felt more involved, informed, and in control of their own care. This shift from a passive recipient to an active participant is a cornerstone of modern healthcare and is a significant win for patient empowerment.

We also found that this digital access improved some aspects of patient safety. While the full scope of this finding is still being explored, it suggests that when patients can review their own records, they may be able to spot potential errors or inconsistencies, acting as an extra layer of oversight.

The Reality Check: More to Learn

While these findings are encouraging, our review made it clear that the story is far from over. Despite the positive results, many questions about the broader benefits of online access remain unanswered. We still need more research to fully understand the long-term impact on overall clinical outcomes, patient-provider relationships, and potential unintended consequences.

The transition to a digital healthcare system is a complex one, and it’s important that we continue to base our decisions on robust evidence. While online access to medical records holds great promise for a more informed and empowered patient population, our work shows we are only at the beginning of this journey.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...
Post a Comment
Read more

UK Covid-19 Inquiry - The Importance of a Strong Primary Healthcare System

In my witness statement for Module 10 of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, I discuss the pandemic's impact through from the perspectives of  primary care and public health, drawing on my extensive experience as a senior academic at Imperial College London and as a practising GP and NHS Public Health Specialist.  I emphasise that the pandemic disproportionately affected people who were clinically vulnerable, the disabled, ethnic minority communities and those living in deprived areas. The pandemic highlighted how structural inequalities, multigenerational housing, and employment in high-risk frontline roles exacerbated health disparities.  My statement also critiques the weakening of public health infrastructure - particularly for the control of infectious diseases - and the lack of integrated health data systems to identify at-risk groups such as the clinically vulnerable. I also advocated for a more robust preventive healthcare model that prioritises community-based primary care ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Relevance Over Recall: Rethinking How AI Uses Clinical Data

Our article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine argues that safe and effective AI in healthcare must incorporate mechanisms that emulate human judgement - down-weighting old, inaccurate or superseded information and prioritising what is recent, clinically relevant and reaffirmed - so that AI supports, rather than disrupts, high-quality patient care.  Clinicians constantly revise, reinterpret and filter past information so that only what is relevant, accurate and timely shapes present-day management decisions; medical records function as dynamic “working tools” rather than fixed archives. By contrast, many AI systems lack this capacity for selective forgetting and often treat all historical data as equally meaningful.  This can lead to outdated or low-confidence diagnoses being repeatedly resurfaced, persistent labels influencing clinical expectations, and irrelevant, long-resolved events cluttering summaries and decision-support outputs. Such indiscriminate recall...
Post a Comment
Read more