Participants’ (N = 30) responses to the closed-ended questions on records access
| Records access | n (%) |
|---|---|
| Patients should have full historic records access | |
| Agree | 6 (20.0) |
| Somewhat agree | 13 (43.3) |
| Disagree | 3 (10.0) |
| Somewhat disagree | 6 (20.0) |
| Don’t know | 2 (6.7) |
| Patients should have prospective records access | |
| Agree | 13 (43.3) |
| Somewhat agree | 9 (30.0) |
| Disagree | 2 (6.7) |
| Somewhat disagree | 2 (6.7) |
| Don’t know | 4 (13.3) |
| Level of access currently granted to patients who request ita | |
| None | 0 (0.0) |
| Appointment booking/repeat scripts | 6 (20.0) |
| Coded record | 11 (36.7) |
| Full record including free-text entries | 8 (26.7) |
| Don’t know/no answer | 5 (16.7) |
↵a Practices, n = 24. When patients requested access, 5 (20.8%) practices granted appointment booking/repeat scripts, 11 (45.8%) granted access to the coded record, and 6 (25.0%) granted access to the full record. Data were unavailable for 2 (8.3%) of practices.