When Medical Expertise Meets Record Expertise: The Practices of Patient Accessible Medical Records in China

Conference paper


Recent consumer, private sector, and governmental health informatics initiatives outline patient accessible medical records (PAMR) as key for engaging patients and supporting patient-clinician communication. However, many challenges have been encountered in designing usable digital systems for patients to access and use their medical records. Barriers to such systems include social, cultural, and policy constraints in addition to usability problems. In particular, questions of expertise, responsibility, and ownership surrounding medical records are often hotly contested between medical professionals and healthcare organizations. In broaching the design challenge of PAMR, much can be learned from examining existing practices for patient carried and accessible records in contexts where these practices are well established. We examine practices surrounding PAMR in a setting where medical records have long been managed by patients: the Chinese healthcare system. Through close examination of managing medical records and sharing medical health information, we find that these personal record practices in China enable a two-way medical records sharing practice between patients and their providers, which fundamentally reconfigures the patient role in healthcare process, facilitates development of ‘record expertise’ on the part of patients, and joint responsibility for health management. We use these findings to illuminate the potential benefits of PAMR, and to offer design considerations to optimize future systems design and deployment efforts in other contexts.


Healthcare Organization Medical Visit Cooperative Work Personal Health Records Consult Room 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Wiljer D, Urowitz S et al (2008) Patient accessible electronic health records: exploring recommendations for successful implementation strategies. J Med Internet Res 10(4):e34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    (2004) Markle foundation. Working group on policies for electronic information sharing between doctors and patients: final report: connecting Americans to their healthcareGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tang PC, Ash JS, Bates DW, Overhage JM, Sands DZ (2006) Personal health records: definition, benefits, and strategies for overcoming barriers to adoption. JAMIA 13(2):121–126Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weiss M (1997) For doctors ‘eyes only: medical records in two Israeli hospitals. Cult Med Psychiatry 21(3):283–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Piras EM, Zanutto A (2010) Prescriptions, x-rays, and grocery lists: designing a personal health record to support (the invisible work of) health information management in the household. CSCW 19:585–613Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kahn J, Aulakh V, Bosworth A (2009) What it takes: characteristics of the ideal personal health record. Health Aff 28(2):369–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    (2011) InformationWeek. 5 reasons why GoogleHealth failed. Accessed online at 29 Jun 2011
  8. 8.
    Tang PC (2003) Key capabilities of an electronic health record system. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liu LS, Shih PC, Hayes GR (2011) Barriers to the adoption and use of personal health record systems. In: Proceedings of the 2011 iConference, pp 363–370Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leonard KJ, Casselman M, Wiljer D (2008) Who will demand access to their personal health record? A focus on users of health services and what they want. Healthc Q 11(1):92–96Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Unruh KT, Pratt W (2007) Patients as actors: the patient’s role in detecting, preventing, and recovering from medical errors. Int J Med Inf 76(S1):S236–S244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cimino JJ, Patel VL et al (2002) The patient clinical information system (PatCIS): technical solutions for and experience with giving patients access to their electronic medical records. Int J Med Inf 68:113–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stein EJ, Furedy RL et al (1979) Patient access to medical records on a psychiatric inpatient unit. Am J Psychiartry 136:327–329Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Earnest MA, Ross SE et al (2004) Use of a patient-accessible electronic medical record in a practice for congestive heart failure: patient and physician experiences. J Am Med Inf Assoc 11:410–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Staroselsky M, Volk LA et al (2006) Improving electronic health record (EHR) accuracy and increasing compliance with health maintenance clinical guidelines through patient access and input. Int J Med Inf 75(10):693–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Urowitz S, Wiljer D, Apatu E, Eysenbach G, Delenardo C, Harth T, Pai H, Leonard KJ (2008) Is Canada ready for patient accessible electronic health records? A national scan. BMC Med Inf Decis Mak 8(1):33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ross AP (1986) The case against showing patients their records. Brit Med J (Clin Res Ed) 292(6520):578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wald JS, Middleton B, Bloom A, Walmsley D, Gleason M, Nelson E, Li Q, Epstein M, Volk L, Bates DW (2004) A patient-controlled journal for an electronic medical record: issues and challenges. Stud Health Technol Inf 107(Pt 2):1166–1170Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ross SE et al (2003) The effects of promoting patient access to medical records: a review. J Am Med Inf Assoc JAMIA 10(2):129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Consolvo S, Roessler P, Shelton BE, LaMarca A, Schilit B, Bly S (2004) Technology for care networks of elders. IEEE Pervasive Comput 3(2):22–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lundberg N, Tellioğlu H (1999) Understanding complex coordination processes in health care. Scand J Inf Syst 1(2):157–181Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mejia DA, Morán AL, Favela J (2007) Supporting informal co-located collaboration in hospital work. In: Groupware: design, implementation, and use, pp 255–270Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chen Y, Ngo V, Park SY (2013) Caring for caregivers: designing for integrality. CSCW 2013:91–102Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jordan B (1993) Birth in four cultures: a cross cultural investigation of childbirth in Yucatan, Holland, Sweden, and the United States. Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, ILGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bourdieu P (1977) Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Garfinkel H (1967) Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Giddens A (1986) The constitution of society. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schmidt K (2011) Cooperative work and coordinative practices. Springer, London, pp 3–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Reckwitz A (2002) Toward a theory of social practices: a development in culturalist theorizing. Eur J Soc Theor 5(2):243–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Emerson RM, Fretz RI, Shaw LL (2011) Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nicolini D (2012) Practice theory, work, and organization. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Polanyi M (1966) The tacit dimension. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of InformaticsUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA
  2. 2.Intel LabsHillsboroUSA

Personalised recommendations