Background and importance An online personalised health record (PHR) is a valid tool to reduce medication discrepancies (MDs), defined as unexplained differences among medication regimens. The success of a PHR depends on the usability and patient’s experienced utility of the PHR.

Aim and objectives The aim of this study was to explore the usability and utility of an online PHR for the identification of MDs, and to describe the association between the usability and patient, setting and medication related factors.

Material and methods Patients with an outpatient visit to the rheumatology department or a planned admission to the cardiology, neurology, internal medicine or pulmonary department received an invitation from an online PHR to update their medication file two weeks before their appointment. The medication file was derived from the Nationwide Medication Record System (NMRS), a digital nationwide network which exchanges medication dispensing data from all pharmacies in the Netherlands. About 1 month after the appointment, PHR users received a system usability scale (SUS) and utility questionnaire. An SUS score < 68 was classified as unacceptable usability. Descriptive analyses were performed to analyse the effect of the patient, setting and medication related factors on the SUS score.

Results The acceptance rate of the PHR ranged from 49% to 63%. 255 (34%) of the 752 invited PHR users completed the questionnaire. The median SUS score of the patients admitted to cardiology, rheumatology and other departments was 60 (IQR 10–98), 65 (IQR 28–100) and 65 (IQR 38–100), respectively. These SUS scores indicated unacceptable usability (SUS <68) of the PHR. Younger patients (<54 years old) and patients with more experience with digital devices had acceptable usability of the PHR (median SUS of 69 (IQR 35–100) and 69 (IQR 43–100), respectively). When the PHR was compared with medication reconciliation (the gold standard to identify MDs), almost half of the patients preferred the PHR to medication reconciliation.

Conclusion and relevance Our results highlight that the usability and utility of a valid PHR was unacceptable. To achieve adoption and use of the PHR by more patients, the PHR should be improved and meet the patient’s needs.

Conflict of interest No conflict of interest