DOME · eHealth · Medical Records Online · National patient survey

Got three papers and one workshop accepted to Medical Informatics Europe (MIE) 2018!

MIE_accept

Last week it was confirmed that three papers, where I’m one of the co-authors, were accepted to the Medical Informatics Europe (MIE) 2018 conference in Gothenburg! On top of this DOME researchers also got a workshop accepted to the same conference.

One of the papers was accepted as a “short communication”. This was a submission about a few results from the national patient survey (about the patient accessible electronic health record system Journalen), related to psychiatry patients and their perception of Journalen. The title of the paper is “Vulnerable, but not neglected? – Patient accessible psychiatry records” and it’s written by Gunilla Myreteg and me.

Another paper (which was accepted as a full paper) was related to waiting times before the patient can access new information in Journalen. Even in this paper we used a few results from the national patient survey. The title of that paper is “Timing it right – patients’ online access to their record notes in Sweden” and it’s written by Maria Hägglund, me, Rose-Mharie Åhlfeldt and Isabella Scandurra.

The last paper (also accepted as a full paper) was actually based on an old master’s thesis project, supervised by Åsa Cajander. This paper also related to Journalen, and more specifically to how nurses’ work environment is affected by the patient being able to access information in Journalen. The title of that paper is “Medical Records Online for Patients and Effects on the Work Environment of Nurses” and it’s written by Åsa, me, Sara Englund and Anastasia Hansman.

In a later blog post I’m going to introduce the workshop at Uppsala Health Summit 2018 that Åsa Cajander, Christiane Grünloh and I are organizing. The MIE workshop, with the title “Identifying the Need of Self-reported Data and Self-measurements for Diagnosis and Treatment of Cancer” is actually a narrowed-down version of the Uppsala Health Summit one. I will be the main organizer of this MIE workshop and Åsa, Christiane and Isabella Scandurra are co-organizers.

All in all, this means that the DOME consortium is well represented at MIE and as I have said earlier we will also organize something at Vitalis, which runs in parallel at the same venue. I will surely write more about these papers and the workshop as well as our activities at Vitalis later on during the spring. So, stay tuned! 🙂

conference · DOME · eHealth · Medical Records Online

Calling for papers to a special track on patient accessible electronic health records at CBMS 2018!

DOMEatCBMS

This year, I am organizing a special track at the Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS) annual conference, together with four colleagues from the DOME consortium:

This is our special track introduction:

In an effort to help patients to become more informed, cope with their diagnosis, understand their disease process and increase their participation in healthcare decision making, there is an international movement towards providing patients with Patient Accessible Electronic Health Records (PAEHRs). Through these systems patients can often access medical notes, lab results, and track referrals. Probably two of the most widely known examples of PAEHR systems are OpenNotes in USA and myUHN Patient Portal in Canada. Other countries that use PAEHRs as components of their health delivery systems are Estonia, United Kingdom and several Nordic countries. The implementation of PAEHRs has apparent implications to both patients and healthcare professionals. When the Swedish PAEHR system Journalen was implemented in Uppsala County Council in 2012, healthcare professionals expressed strong concerns regarding e.g. that patients would begin to contact healthcare providers by telephone to ask about words and phrases they do not understand, or that patients would become anxious on learning about serious diagnoses when reading record notes. Physicians saw the medical records as their work tool and not a system for communication with patients. Similar opinions have been raised by healthcare professionals in other countries where similar systems have been implemented. There is relatively few studies on PAEHRs from the patient’s perspective, but the findings so far indicate positive attitudes towards the perceived usefulness of PAEHRs.

The organisers of this special track are all members of the Swedish national DOME (Development of Online Medical records and E-health services) consortium – a consortium focusing on research on PAEHRs from a multi-disciplinary perspective (human-computer interaction, health informatics, security and privacy, health information behaviour, to name a few). This special track aims at bringing researchers as well as patients together to discuss the latest research concerning the implementation and development of PAEHRs as well as research concerning experiences with and attitudes towards PAEHRs from the patient and professional perspectives. Since implementations often differ between countries and sometimes even within one country (e.g. as in Sweden), contributions comparing implementation of PAEHRs in different countries and contexts are especially welcome. Patient-focused researchers are encouraged to contribute with research papers highlighting patient perspective, including research on PAEHRs with a functionality that allows patients to add information to their medical records online. Reports of new initiatives related to PAEHRs are also of special interest.

See the 4th track on this page for more information about topics of interest and see the call for papers here. If you do (or have done) research related to patient accessible electronic health records you are more than welcome to submit a paper to our special track! Please note that the deadline for abstracts is 5/2 and the deadline for full papers is 19/2.

eHealth · Grant application · Multimodality

Looking forward to a spring of opportunities!

Spring_2018

This will be a very special year for me, since my postdoc period at Uppsala University will end in September and I currently have no idea what will happen after that. I may be able to find a way to continue my work in Uppsala, but that is far from given. But, as the heading of this post suggests (as well as my picture), there are a bunch of possibilities up ahead. I now have several project ideas and the same goes for my current colleagues at Uppsala University and my former colleagues at KTH. On top of this, there are two interesting assistant professorship and three associate professorship jobs to apply for!

When it comes to open positions, all I have found are in the area of healthcare/eHealth (two of these, from Uppsala University, are technically about information systems in general, but can easily be angled towards health systems). One of the open positions belong to KTH, two to Uppsala University and two to Örebro University. I will write more about these when I have applied for the respective positions. The downside here is that I will probably not be able to work with multimodal interaction if given one of these positions, but on the other hand eHealth is an area that I am really interested in.

Even though it would be great to get a semi-secure assistant professorship, getting research projects would be even more interesting since these often run for four years (same duration as a regular assistant professorship). Research projects which you define yourself, in collaboration with colleagues, are probably also even more in line with your main interests. The current plan is that I will be the main applicant on one project application to Forte (Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare) and co-applicant in one project application to the VR (Swedish Research Council), one project application to Vinnova (the challenge driven innovation call) and two project applications to AFA Försäkringar (AFA Insurance). On top of that I will also be co-applicant on a research program application to Riksbankens Jubileumsfond and one grant application for Interdisciplinary Research Environments to VR. Four of the applications concern collaboration in multimodal environments and three concern eHealth systems. The ideal result here would be to get one project/program in each research area, since that would make it possible for me to continue working with my two favorite topics. One can always hope…

If given the choice I would pick the research program and the interdisciplinary research environment. By the way, fantastic things happen in the world of research applications from time to time – during autumn 2016 the researcher in charge of our HTO group at Uppsala University, Åsa Cajander, got three project grants during one week! One side effect was that our research group moved to a larger office area to make room for new collaborators. If we get that lucky this time around I guess they might have to build a new house for us… 😉

communication · design · DOME · eHealth · EIT · EIT Health · Grant application · Human-Computer Interaction · Medical Records Online · National patient survey · Social media in higher education

Looking back at 2017!

Färjeläget

A new year has just begun and before I start blogging about current activities, I will take this opportunity to look back at some of the important things that happened last year. If you have been following this blog regularly, you have probably already read about the last summer’s adventures at the ACM SIGCHI/EIT Health summer school in a number of different posts so I will not get into any detail about that school here. If you want to read about what went on during this eHealth/mHealth design summer school you should read this post and all the posts it links to. The same goes for the very successful DOME session about patient accessible electronic health records at Vitalis, which I describe here.  As in all other of my meta-posts, I have chosen one of the nature pictures I took myself during the year.

Selected research activities

There was quite a lot of research going on last year. The research activities related to all of my focus areas eHealth, multimodal communication and social media in higher education courses. Naturally, most of my activities were connected to eHealth. Primarily, I continued working with the national patient survey on patient accessible electronic health records in Sweden (introduced here) and the interview/observation/survey study with physicians and nurses (introduced here). Last year’s work with the national patient survey resulted in four submitted manuscripts (to one journal and two conferences) and there is a lot more we can do with that study! It became especially interesting when we started comparing responses from different disease groups during the end of 2017. I will tell you more about these results later on when we have some publications. In the other study we conducted several interviews with physicians, about the effects of patients accessible electronic health records on their work environment, during the autumn. Most of the surveys have also been handed in. I will not discuss the results before they get published but I can tell you that both the qualitative and quantitative data gathered this far show that this study was very much needed! During the autumn I also started to, with my DOME consortium colleague Gunilla Myreteg, follow the implementation of psychiatry records online in Region Uppsala. I will write more about that in later posts.

I also started on another track related to eHealth – how we can make use of data from different sources for better diagnoses and treatment of cancer. This topic is also connected to big data and happens to be one of the themes covered in the 2018 version of Uppsala Health Summit. I am one of the organizers behind a workshop there and I also submitted a workshop proposal to a conference on the same theme. It remains to be seen if this will become one of my main research focuses in the future. It’s definitely and interesting and very important topic.

My work on multimodal mediated communication during 2017 focused primarily on revising a journal manuscript (presenting a study I was a part of during my last year at KTH) and submitting two posters to the Swedish Cognitive Science Society conference which was held in Uppsala in October. The accepted submissions are more thoroughly presented here and here.

Teaching

During autumn I was, together with Mohammad Obaid, responsible for a master level introductory course in Human-Computer Interaction. I really enjoyed that and I think the changes made to the course before it started really made a positive difference. One of the new parts we introduced to the course was a very appreciated creative prototyping session which I describe here. The students presented their final results in the middle of December and those results were very good. I describe the final presentation sessions here and the four finalists (which will compete for the winning team award) in these four blog posts:

  1. HCI course finalist 1: enhancing and simplifying the biking experience through augmented reality!
  2. HCI course finalist 2: utilizing haptic feedback for alerts and navigation cues!
  3. HCI course finalist 3: a solution for finding bikes to rent at your destination!
  4. HCI course finalist 4: a device presenting real-time and easily read navigational cues!

My research on the use of social media in higher education courses was also combined with my teaching in this course. The focus of that research is a teacher administrated Facebook-group which has been used as a complementary communication channel during the course. I explain the basic idea here.

Some other activities

Other activities worth bringing up here are my participation in the EIT Health Alumni Connect and the INNOVEIT events in Budapest in October. It was a great experience being there and my blog posts about Connect and INNOVEIT as well as those about the summer school also resulted in me being asked if I wanted to work with the EIT Health Alumni communication manager! Of course I accepted, but it remains to be seen exactly how that work should be carried out and what the tasks will be.

In November, I also took part in the first meeting as a representative in the eHealth council at the National Board of Health and Welfare in Sweden. I wrote about some of my experiences from that meeting here. I think many interesting collaborations can be found here!

In April I also submitted my first ever VR (the Swedish Research Council) application, which focused on support for collaboration between sighted and deafblind pupils in school. I wrote about that here. Unfortunately, we did not get a grant this time, but we got a “Very good” ranking on all criteria related to the content and feasibility so we will definitely move on with our ideas!

Council · eHealth · Medical Records Online

Experiences from my first meeting in the eHealth council

In a blog post from last spring I wrote about my new membership in the eHealth council, which belongs to the National Board of Health and Welfare in Sweden. I missed the first meetings due to teaching activities and bad health respectively, but last week I finally made it to my first meeting with the council. It was a very interesting experience. The council meets four times a year, so this was the last meeting 2017. The main focus seems to be on information structures and how to make sure that different county councils e.g. use the same terminology and systems. I will here present some of my experiences from the meeting, without going into too much detail since it doesn’t seem right to blog publicly about what was discussed.

As I have mentioned earlier, many different areas are represented in the council. I currently represent Uppsala University and more specifically “Education”. I don’t really get why that is my main topic, since a representative for “Research” would be just as valuable. Anyhow, coming from a university I represent both education and research and as a matter of fact everything I said during this particular meeting was related to research and possible collaborations with academia.

In the blog post linked above I list more of the roles/organizations that were represented in the council. I think the diversity is one of the strengths of the council – since both healthcare organizations, a few government agencies, healthcare professionals and even patients are represented you can make sure that all important parties are involved when discussing important topics related to e.g. the future of eHealth solutions and how information should be structured in a way that would work for everyone. There was one exception, though. No one in particular seemed to represent “Research”. One could argue that I represent that domain, as I mentioned above, but it is not explicitly stated anywhere. I think a connection to research is extremely important in a council like this.

Several different projects were presented and discussed and I really liked the focus on the user (most often healthcare professionals). In most presentations it was highlighted that healthcare professionals play an important role in projects and policy decisions related to eHealth. This is exactly how it should be!

My input during the meetings mostly concerned the importance of bringing researchers into the different projects. I even suggested research collaborations in some cases, but we will see what happens with that. Since the projects discussed in the council (at least for the moment) focus a lot on user involvement in design and decision processes, I really think HCI researchers can support the projects and at the same time conduct research that will inform future design and decision processes. After the meeting I also brought up Journalen (the patient accessible electronic health record system in Sweden), which is the focus of my own research. When it comes to differences between county councils we have some issues there, like e.g. that the amount of information visible to the patient varies greatly between county councils and that the rules on when to present information differs. This really caught some participants’ interest, so we can definitely expect Journalen to be a topic at a later meeting!

conference · DOME · eHealth · Medical Records Online · National patient survey · Vitalis

Co-authored three submissions to Medical Informatics Europe (MIE) 2018!

MIE_submit

Since the conference Medical Informatics Europe (MIE) is held at the same time and place as Vitalis this year several of the researchers within the DOME consortium as well as in our HTO group at Uppsala University, have submitted quite a few papers to MIE and seminar proposals to Vitalis. In an earlier blog post I wrote about the two proposals I wrote to Vitalis, which both focused on different aspects of patients accessible electronic health records.

Aside from writing proposals to Vitalis, I also co-authored three MIE papers together with several DOME colleagues. One of those papers focuses on how patient access to medical records online is affecting the work environment for nurses and I wrote it together with Åsa Cajander. It’s actually based on an earlier master’s thesis which Åsa supervised. This paper was done quite a while ago.

The two other papers were based partly on results from the national patient survey study which I am currently leading (we have been at the analyses/reporting stage for quite a while). One of those papers focuses on delay periods (before patients can access information in their electronic health record) for signed and unsigned notes and how these differ between county councils. Maria Hägglund was the main author and Rose-Mharie Åhlfeldt and Isabella Scandurra were the other co-authors.

The second paper which was based on the patient survey focuses on psychiatry records online – an area which we will focus on much more in the near future. I will explain why in a later blog post about upcoming activities. I wrote this paper together with Gunilla Myreteg, who was the main author.

Here you can find an introduction of all researchers working with the national patients survey. I should not give any more details right now about specific analysis results or focus themes in the national survey study since that could interfere with later blind review processes. But I can tell you that the results covered in the very short MIE submissions (five pages is the limit!) are just small parts of the material we have regarding a few of the focus areas we are covering in that study. We are just getting started!  🙂

The deadline for MIE-submissions was last Sunday, November 12. January 20 the authors will get the verdicts (accept/reject). I can hardly wait!

 

conference · DOME · eHealth · Medical Records Online · Vitalis

Recently submitted two seminar proposals to Vitalis

The deadline for submitting seminar proposals to Vitalis 2018 was last Friday, October 20. I almost missed that deadline, since I was so focused on the Medical Informatics Europe (MIE) 2018 conference which is held at the same time and place as Vitalis. I was, however, reminded a few hours before deadline and managed to submit two proposals (this is the first year I submit anything to Vitalis). 

Vitalis is a great place to be at for everyone interested in eHealth and progress/innovation in healthcare in general. It is mainly a Swedish event and gather researchers, business leaders, politicians, healthcare professionals and several other visitor categories. Last year I participated in Vitalis for the first time and I really enjoyed it! My favorite part was of course the 1,5 hours session organized by the DOME consortium. I especially enjoyed the team work both during our event itself and during the planning. My best conference experience ever, by far! The focus of that session was the state of art regarding patient accessible electronic health records in Sweden. You can read my blog post about all parts of that session here

Hopefully, at least one of my proposals will be accepted. Both of them focus on patient accessible electronic health records. One of my proposed sessions focuses on a recent study about how these online health records affect the work environment for nurses. The other proposal focuses on results from my large ongoing studies within the DOME consortium. There will be a lot of interesting material from those studies to discuss when we reach Vitalis! DOME usually draws a big audience at Vitalis, so hopefully at least the second proposal will be accepted. If it is, I hope that many DOME colleagues will join me so we can throw a similar kind of party as we did last time!  😉

Apart from submitting proposals to Vitalis I will also co-author three full papers, together with several DOME colleagues, to the MIE conference and probably submit a workshop proposal to MIE. I will write about those later on. If all goes well, there will be some busy days for the DOME researchers during the Vitalis/MIE conference period, April 24-26 2018!