Search

Historically, the terms sex and gender have been used interchangeably as a binary attribute to describe a person as male or female, even though there is growing recognition that sex and gender are distinct concepts. The lack of sex and gender delineation in electronic health records (EHRs) may be perpetuating the inequities experienced by the transgender and gender nonbinary (TGNB) populations.This study aims to conduct an environmental scan to understand how sex and gender are defined and implemented in existing Canadian EHRs and current international health information standards.We examined public information sources on sex and gender definitions in existing Canadian EHRs and international standards communities. Definitions refer to data element names, code systems, and value sets in the descriptions of EHRs and standards. The study was built on an earlier environment scan by Canada Health Infoway, supplemented with sex and gender definitions from international standards communities. For the analysis, we examined the definitions for clarity, consistency, and accuracy. We also received feedback from a virtual community interested in sex-gender EHR issues.The information sources consisted of public website descriptions of 52 databases and 55 data standards from 12 Canadian entities and 10 standards communities. There are variations in the definition and implementation of sex and gender in Canadian EHRs and international health information standards. There is a lack of clarity in some sex and gender concepts. There is inconsistency in the data element names, code systems, and value sets used to represent sex and gender concepts across EHRs. The appropriateness and adequacy of some value options are questioned as our societal understanding of sexual health evolves. Outdated value options raise concerns about current EHRs supporting the provision of culturally competent, safe, and affirmative health care. The limited options also perpetuate the inequities faced by the TGNB populations. The expanded sex and gender definitions from leading Canadian organizations and international standards communities have brought challenges in how to migrate these definitions into existing EHRs. We proposed 6 high-level actions, which are to articulate the need for this work, reach consensus on sex and gender concepts, reach consensus on expanded sex and gender definitions in EHRs, develop a coordinated action plan, embrace EHR change from socio-organizational and technical aspects to ensure success, and demonstrate the benefits in tangible terms.There are variations in sex and gender concepts across Canadian EHRs and the health information standards that support them. Although there are efforts to modernize sex and gender concept definitions, we need decisive and coordinated actions to ensure clarity, consistency, and competency in the definition and implementation of sex and gender concepts in EHRs. This work has implications for addressing the inequities of TGNB populations in Canada.

Background Historically, the terms sex and gender have been used interchangeably as a binary attribute to describe a person as male or female, even though there is growing recognition that sex and gender are distinct concepts. The lack of sex and gender delineation in electronic health records (EHRs) may be perpetuating the inequities experienced by the transgender and gender nonbinary (TGNB) populations. Objective This study aims to conduct an environmental scan to understand how sex and gender are defined and implemented in existing Canadian EHRs and current international health information standards. Methods We examined public information sources on sex and gender definitions in existing Canadian EHRs and international standards communities. Definitions refer to data element names, code systems, and value sets in the descriptions of EHRs and standards. The study was built on an earlier environment scan by Canada Health Infoway, supplemented with sex and gender definitions from international standards communities. For the analysis, we examined the definitions for clarity, consistency, and accuracy. We also received feedback from a virtual community interested in sex-gender EHR issues. Results The information sources consisted of public website descriptions of 52 databases and 55 data standards from 12 Canadian entities and 10 standards communities. There are variations in the definition and implementation of sex and gender in Canadian EHRs and international health information standards. There is a lack of clarity in some sex and gender concepts. There is inconsistency in the data element names, code systems, and value sets used to represent sex and gender concepts across EHRs. The appropriateness and adequacy of some value options are questioned as our societal understanding of sexual health evolves. Outdated value options raise concerns about current EHRs supporting the provision of culturally competent, safe, and affirmative health care. The limited options also perpetuate the inequities faced by the TGNB populations. The expanded sex and gender definitions from leading Canadian organizations and international standards communities have brought challenges in how to migrate these definitions into existing EHRs. We proposed 6 high-level actions, which are to articulate the need for this work, reach consensus on sex and gender concepts, reach consensus on expanded sex and gender definitions in EHRs, develop a coordinated action plan, embrace EHR change from socio-organizational and technical aspects to ensure success, and demonstrate the benefits in tangible terms. Conclusions There are variations in sex and gender concepts across Canadian EHRs and the health information standards that support them. Although there are efforts to modernize sex and gender concept definitions, we need decisive and coordinated actions to ensure clarity, consistency, and competency in the definition and implementation of sex and gender concepts in EHRs. This work has implications for addressing the inequities of TGNB populations in Canada.

BackgroundPhysician office practices are increasingly adopting electronic medical records (EMRs). Therefore, the impact of such systems needs to be evaluated to ensure they are helping practices to realize expected benefits. In addition to experimental and observational studies examining objective impacts, the user’s subjective view needs to be understood, since ultimate acceptance and use of the system depends on them. Surveys are commonly used to elicit these views. ObjectiveTo determine which areas of EMR implementation in office practices have been addressed in survey-based research studies, to compare the perceived impacts between users and nonusers for the most-addressed areas, and to contribute to the knowledge regarding survey-based research for assessing the impact of health information systems (HIS). MethodsWe searched databases and systematic review citations for papers published between 2000 and 2012 (May) that evaluated the perceived impact of using an EMR system in an office-based practice, were based on original data, had providers as the primary end user, and reported outcome measures related to the system’s positive or negative impact. We identified all the reported metrics related to EMR use and mapped them to the Clinical Adoption Framework to analyze the gap. We then subjected the impact-specific areas with the most reported results to a meta-analysis, which examined overall positive and negative perceived impacts for users and nonusers. ResultsWe selected 19 papers for the review. We found that most impact-specific areas corresponded to the micro level of the framework and that appropriateness or effectiveness and efficiency were well addressed through surveys. However, other areas such as access, which includes patient and caregiver participation and their ability to access services, had very few metrics. We selected 7 impact-specific areas for meta-analysis: security and privacy; quality of patient care or clinical outcomes; patient–physician relationship and communication; communication with other providers; accessibility of records and information; business or practice efficiency; and costs or savings. All the results for accessibility of records and information and for communication with providers indicated a positive view. The area with the most mixed results was security and privacy. ConclusionsUsers sometimes were likelier than nonusers to have a positive view of the selected areas. However, when looking at the two groups separately, we often found more positive views for most of the examined areas regardless of use status. Despite limitations of a small number of papers and their heterogeneity, the results of this review are promising in terms of finding positive perceptions of EMR adoption for users and nonusers. In addition, we identified issues related to survey-based research for HIS evaluation, particularly regarding constructs for evaluation and quality of study design and reporting.