Since its beginnings in the 1980s the internet has come to shape our everyday lives, but doctors still seem rather afraid of it. This anxiety may be explained by the fact that researchers and regulatory bodies focus less on the way that the internet can be used to enhance clinical work and more on the potential and perceived risks that this technology poses in terms of boundary violations and accidental breaches of confidentiality. Some aspects of the internet's impact on medicine have been better researched than others, for example, whether email communication, social media and teleconferencing psychotherapy could be used to improve the delivery of care. However, few authors have considered the specific issue of searching online for information about patients and much of the guidance published by regulatory organisations eludes this issue. In this article we provide clinical examples where the question ‘should I Google the patient?’ may arise and present questions for future research.

AimsThe primary aim of the project was to improve attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccine in forensic mental health staff at a large regional tertiary forensic psychiatry unit. The main variable examined was attitudes towards safety of the vaccine. Secondary aims included decreasing misinformation about the vaccine and improving vaccine uptake.MethodPaper questionnaires were distributed to willing staff members across 6 forensic inpatient wards within the North London Forensic Service. Participants included a range of allied health professionals including nurses, health care assistants, ward managers, occupational therapists, assistant therapists and administrative staff. Questionnaires used a mixture of Likert scale for agreement/disagreement with statements and yes/no questions.Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) methodology was utilised in implementing changes, and repeat questionnaires used to measure changes in attitude and behaviour. Change ideas implemented included the creation of ‘mythbusters’ posters which target vaccine misinformation, the creation and distribution of posters of staff members who had already taken their vaccine, the creation of vaccine champions to aid engagement in conversation about the vaccine, vaccine information packs being distributed to all wards and the opportunity for staff to ‘drop-in’ to clinics for information about the vaccine.ResultVaccine uptake improved from 7% before interventions to 69% after interventions.The proportion of people very unlikely or unlikely to get the vaccine reduced from 25% to just 9%. The proportion of those feeling neutral reduced from 32% to 6%. The proportion of those either likely or very likely to get the vaccine increased from 34% to 85%.Before interventions only 20% felt that the vaccine was either safe or very safe. This improved to 63% after interventionsBefore interventions, only 27% of respondents felt they had received enough information by the trust to make an informed decision. After interventions, 80% said they had received enough information.The project was successful in reducing misinformation in every domain. Particularly reassuring was the reduction to zero of some of the most harmful misinformation claims, such as the presence of a tracking chip in the vaccine and the belief that COVID does not exist.71% of respondents indicated the interventions we set out changed their view on the COVID-19 vaccine.ConclusionThe changes implemented lead to clear improvements in all domains measured, suggesting targeted information is an effective strategy in improving uptake and attitudes around the vaccination program.