Breaking down My Health Record mandatory uploads

As a GP, I’ve watched the evolution of My Health Record over the last 13 years with a mixture of optimism and caution.
 
The latest reforms introduced under the Health Legislation Amendment (Modernising My Health Record: Sharing by Default) Act 2025 are among the most significant we’ve seen.
 
This legislation will see the introduction of mandatory uploads to My Health Record, initially for pathology and diagnostic imaging reports.
 
A related reform, which isn’t part of the legislation, but complements it, is a change in policy related to the timeframe in which patients can access results in My Health Record.
 
From October 2025, most pathology results became immediately visible to patients once uploaded, meaning they can choose to log into their record to access their results.
 
For other results, including cytopathology, anatomical pathology and genetic tests, a delay has been retained, but reduced from seven to five days.
 
This year, similar changes will follow for diagnostic imaging with X-ray reports of limbs moving to immediate release from March 2026.
 
Other diagnostic tests such as CT, MRI, PET, ultrasound, and most torso imaging will also move to a five-day delay rather than the original seven days.
 
Clinicians will continue to have access to all reports as soon as they are uploaded to My Health Record with no delay.
 
These changes aim to give patients faster access to their own health information, reduce duplicate testing, and support the coordination of care.
 
On paper, these are sensible goals, and in many ways, I support them.
 
But as always in healthcare, what looks straightforward from a policy perspective can play out very differently in the consulting room.
 
Prior to these changes, GPs were the first to view and interpret the results of the tests they ordered for the patient.
 
They could decide how to present the findings to the patient in the context of other information, such as the patient’s medical history, cultural background and medical literacy.
 
Even when patients received printed results or uploaded documents, they usually came after a clinical discussion or at least after we’d had the chance to preview them.
 
That buffer provided patients with a protective and supportive framework – it helped reduce panic, misunderstandings, and late nights with Dr Google.
 
The removal of the seven-day delay disrupts that dynamic.
 
Now, if a patient chooses to look at their results in My Health Record, they may see their abnormal results or phrases on reports like ‘indeterminate nodule’ or ‘possible mass requiring further evaluation’ at the same moment their GP first becomes aware of it.
 
The patient may even see their results earlier than their doctor if their GP is consulting or the result arrives outside normal general practice hours.
 
For many patients, particularly those managing a chronic condition which they know a great deal about, early access will be empowering.
 
For others, it may create distress in exactly the moment when reassurance, context, and clinical reasoning are most needed.
 
In theory, patients having their information earlier should lead to better health literacy and more proactive engagement.
 
In practice, there will be several new scenarios that GPs and their teams will need to manage.
 
One of the key challenges we face is that ‘normal’ doesn’t always mean ‘nothing to do’.
 
Some normal results still need repeat testing, long-term monitoring, or GP review depending on the patient’s symptoms.
 
Patients may also dismiss results that are technically within range, but clinically significant based on their history.
 
If patients are interpreting results on their own, with the assistance of the internet, or even through an AI chatbot, they can become unduly concerned.
 
The Pathology Tests Explained resource, provided within My Health Record, goes some way to bridging this gap, as a source of clinically validated, patient-friendly information, but it does not mitigate the risk completely.
 
A patient may see results slightly above the normal range and assume immediate treatment is required.
 
An ambiguous phrase such as ‘cannot exclude malignancy’ could result in hours of catastrophic thinking before they can speak with their GP.
 
Navigating patient choice with the changes to sharing results is important, as patients maintain control over their My Health Record and the information it contains.
 
Patients can indicate they do not want their results uploaded at the time of the request.
 
GPs can manage this via their clinical information systems, or patients can tick the ‘Do not send to My Health Record’ box on the paper forms.
 
Patients can also manage access to their test results after they have been uploaded by applying access controls or by hiding or removing documents already uploaded.
 
This does not affect the original report going to the doctor who requested the test – that will still be sent in the usual way.
 
One of the most valuable aspects of these reforms may be that it nudges general practice towards having clearer, more structured conversations when ordering tests.
 
When requesting tests, GPs can minimise uncertainty and reduce panic by setting clear expectations for the patient on why the test is needed, what a normal or abnormal result could mean, and how they will hear from the practice about the results.
 
We will need to have clear strategies across the practice and safety nets for patients who cancel appointments for follow up based on their interpretation of results.
 
With test results being shared by default, the number of tests GPs can see that have been ordered by other practitioners will increase.
 
This is a mostly positive step forward and could result in fewer repeated tests.
 
However, the obligation to follow up still lies with the requesting clinician, not the GP who later views the report.
 
This is an important boundary to maintain to avoid confusion and minimise medico-legal risk.
 
But, with patients finding out results of tests done in hospital before their follow-up appointment at the hospital, we may need to manage patient requests for explanation of results, such as biopsy reports post-surgical procedure.
 
All of this will no doubt increase the workload for GPs and their teams, at least initially.
 
More patient enquiries, more appointments for reassurance, and the need to review results quickly all add pressure to our already busy days.
 
Our practices will also need robust systems to ensure timely review, especially because patients may assume that if they can see the result, we must have seen it too.
 
This may be a particular challenge to part time doctors or when a patient has had a test performed whilst a doctor is on leave.
 
Longer term though, better information flow could reduce unnecessary repeat tests, streamline care, and actually save time.
 
If a patient has imaging done by another provider, the report will be visible to us automatically through the My Health Record – no chasing up, no faxing, no waiting.
 
While these reforms introduce new challenges, they align with a broader cultural shift in healthcare where patients expect transparency, autonomy, and real-time access to their information.
 
As GPs, we must adapt to these changes by ensuring our systems are tight, our communications clear, and our patients supported.
 
The benefits are real: better continuity of care, fewer duplications and more informed patients.
 
But so are the risks: potential distress, misinterpretation, and increased workload.
 
Ultimately, faster access to results is not a replacement for clinical interpretation, but it can create an environment for clearer and more meaningful dialogue with our patients.
 
These changes to pathology and diagnostic uploading underscore the importance of GPs as the central point of patient care.
 
Log in below to join the conversation.

diagnostic imaging digital health My Health Record pathology