Perceptions of Quality of Care Among Users of a Web-Based Patient Portal: Cross-sectional Survey Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Web-based patient portals enable patients access to, and interaction with, their personal electronic health records. However, little is known about the impact of patient portals on quality of care. Users of patient portals can contribute important insights toward addressing this knowledge gap. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe perceived changes in the quality of care among users of a web-based patient portal and to identify the characteristics of patients who perceive the greatest benefit of portal use. METHODS: A cross-sectional web-based survey study was conducted to understand patients' experiences with the Care Information Exchange (CIE) portal. Patient sociodemographic data were collected, including age, sex, ethnicity, educational level, health status, geographic location, motivation to self-manage, and digital health literacy (measured by the eHealth Literacy Scale). Patients with experience using CIE, who specified both age and sex, were included in these analyses. Relevant survey items (closed-ended questions) were mapped to the Institute of Medicine's 6 domains of quality of care. Users' responses were examined to understand their perceptions of how portal use has changed the overall quality of their care, different aspects of care related to the 6 domains of care quality, and patient's satisfaction with care. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed to identify patient characteristics associated with perceived improvements in overall care quality and greater satisfaction with care. RESULTS: Of 445 CIE users, 38.7% (n=172) reported that the overall quality of their care was better; 3.2% (n=14) said their care was worse. In the patient centeredness domain, 61.2% (273/445) of patients felt more in control of their health care, and 53.9% (240/445) felt able to play a greater role in decision-making. Regarding timeliness, 40.2% (179/445) of patients reported they could access appointments, diagnoses, and treatment more quickly. Approximately 30% of CIE users reported better care related to the domains of effectiveness (123/445, 27.6%), safety (138/445, 31%), and efficiency (174/445, 28.6%). Regarding equity, patients self-reporting higher digital health literacy (odds ratio 2.40, 95% CI 1.07-5.42; P=.03) and those belonging to ethnic minority groups (odds ratio 2.27, 95% CI 1.26-3.73; P<.005) were more likely to perceive improvements in care quality. Across ethnic groups, Asian and British Asian patients perceived the greatest benefits. Increased frequency of CIE use also predicted perceived better care quality and greater satisfaction with care. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of CIE users perceived better care quality and greater satisfaction with care, although many portal users reported no change. The most favorable perceived improvements related to the domain of patient centeredness. With national policy directed toward addressing health disparities, patient portals could be valuable in improving care quality for ethnic minority groups. Future research should test the causal relationship between patient portal use and care quality.

Patients' Willingness and Ability to Identify and Respond to Errors in Their Personal Health Records: Mixed Methods Analysis of Cross-sectional Survey Data.

BACKGROUND: Errors in electronic health records are known to contribute to patient safety incidents; however, systems for checking the accuracy of patient records are almost nonexistent. Personal health records (PHRs) enabling patient access to and interaction with the clinical records offer a valuable opportunity for patients to actively participate in error surveillance. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate patients' willingness and ability to identify and respond to errors in their PHRs. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using a web-based questionnaire. Patient sociodemographic data were collected, including age, sex, ethnicity, educational level, health status, geographical location, motivation to self-manage, and digital health literacy (measured using the eHealth Literacy Scale tool). Patients with experience of using the Care Information Exchange (CIE) portal, who specified both age and sex, were included in these analyses. The patients' responses to 4 relevant survey items (closed-ended questions, some with space for free-text comments) were examined to understand their willingness and ability to identify and respond to errors in their PHRs. Multinomial logistic regression was used to identify patients' characteristics that predict the ability to understand information in the CIE and willingness to respond to errors in their records. The framework method was used to derive themes from patients' free-text responses. RESULTS: Of 445 patients, 181 (40.7%) "definitely" understood the CIE information and approximately half (220/445, 49.4%) understood the CIE information "to some extent." Patients with high digital health literacy (eHealth Literacy Scale score ≥26) were more confident in their ability to understand their records compared with patients with low digital health literacy (odds ratio [OR] 7.85, 95% CI 3.04-20.29; P<.001). Information-related barriers (medical terminology and lack of medical guidance or contextual information) and system-related barriers (functionality or usability and information communicated or displayed poorly) were described. Of 445 patients, 79 (17.8%) had noticed errors in their PHRs, which were related to patient demographic details, diagnoses, medical history, results, medications, letters or correspondence, and appointments. Most patients (272/445, 61.1%) wanted to be able to flag up errors to their health professionals for correction; 20.4% (91/445) of the patients were willing to correct errors themselves. Native English speakers were more likely to be willing to flag up errors to health professionals (OR 3.45, 95% CI 1.11-10.78; P=.03) or correct errors themselves (OR 5.65, 95% CI 1.33-24.03; P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of patients were able and willing to identify and respond to errors in their PHRs. However, some barriers persist that disproportionately affect the underserved groups. Further development of PHR systems, including incorporating channels for patient feedback on the accuracy of their records, should address the needs of nonnative English speakers and patients with lower digital health literacy.

Determinants of Use of the Care Information Exchange Portal: Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Sharing electronic health records with patients has been shown to improve patient safety and quality of care. Patient portals represent a convenient tool to enhance patient access to their own health care data. However, the success of portals will only be possible through sustained adoption by its end users: the patients. A better understanding of the characteristics of users and nonusers is critical for understanding which groups remain excluded from using such tools. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify the determinants of the use of the Care Information Exchange, a shared patient portal program in the United Kingdom. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted using a web-based questionnaire. Information collected included age, gender, ethnicity, educational level, health status, postcode, and digital literacy. Registered individuals were defined as having had an account created in the portal, independent of their actual use of the platform; users were defined as having ever used the portal. Multivariate logistic regression was used to model the probability of being a user. Statistical analysis was performed in R and Tableau was used to create maps of the proportion of Care Information Exchange users by postcode area. RESULTS: A total of 1083 participants replied to the survey (186% of the estimated minimum target sample). The proportion of users was 61.58% (667/1083). Among these, most (385/667, 57.7%) used the portal at least once a month. To characterize the system's users and nonusers, we performed a subanalysis of the sample, including only participants who had provided at least information regarding gender and age. The subanalysis included 650 individuals (389/650, 59.8% women; 551/650, 84.8% >40 years). Most participants were White (498/650, 76.6%) and resided in London (420/650, 64.6%). Individuals with a higher educational degree (undergraduate and professional, or postgraduate and higher) had higher odds of being a portal user (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.58, 95% CI 1.04-2.39 and OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.42-4.02, respectively) compared with those with a secondary degree or below. Higher digital literacy scores (≥30) were associated with higher odds of being a user (adjusted OR 2.96, 95% CI 2.02-4.35). Those with a good overall health status had lower odds of being a user (adjusted OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37-0.91). CONCLUSIONS: This work adds to the growing body of evidence highlighting the importance of educational aspects (educational level and digital literacy) in the adoption of patient portals. Further research should not only describe but also systematically address these inequalities through patient-centered interventions aimed at reducing the digital divide. Health care providers and policy makers must partner in investing and delivering strategic programs that improve access to technology and digital literacy in an effort to improve digital inclusion and reduce inequities in the delivery of care.

Assessment of Patients' Ability to Review Electronic Health Record Information to Identify Potential Errors: Cross-sectional Web-Based Survey.

BACKGROUND: Sharing personal health information positively impacts quality of care across several domains, and particularly, safety and patient-centeredness. Patients may identify and flag up inconsistencies in their electronic health records (EHRs), leading to improved information quality and patient safety. However, in order to identify potential errors, patients need to be able to understand the information contained in their EHRs. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess patients' perceptions of their ability to understand the information contained in their EHRs and to analyze the main barriers to their understanding. Additionally, the main types of patient-reported errors were characterized. METHODS: A cross-sectional web-based survey was undertaken between March 2017 and September 2017. A total of 682 registered users of the Care Information Exchange, a patient portal, with at least one access during the time of the study were invited to complete the survey containing both structured (multiple choice) and unstructured (free text) questions. The survey contained questions on patients' perceived ability to understand their EHR information and therefore, to identify errors. Free-text questions allowed respondents to expand on the reasoning for their structured responses and provide more detail about their perceptions of EHRs and identifying errors within them. Qualitative data were systematically reviewed by 2 independent researchers using the framework analysis method in order to identify emerging themes. RESULTS: A total of 210 responses were obtained. The majority of the responses (123/210, 58.6%) reported understanding of the information. The main barriers identified were information-related (medical terminology and knowledge and interpretation of test results) and technology-related (user-friendliness of the portal, information display). Inconsistencies relating to incomplete and incorrect information were reported in 12.4% (26/210) of the responses. CONCLUSIONS: While the majority of the responses affirmed the understanding of the information contained within the EHRs, both technology and information-based barriers persist. There is a potential to improve the system design to better support opportunities for patients to identify errors. This is with the aim of improving the accuracy, quality, and timeliness of the information held in the EHRs and a mechanism to further engage patients in their health care.

Impact of providing patients access to electronic health records on quality and safety of care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of sharing electronic health records (EHRs) with patients and map it across six domains of quality of care (ie, patient-centredness, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness, equity and safety). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, HMIC, Medline/PubMed and PsycINFO, from 1997 to 2017. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised trials focusing on adult subjects, testing an intervention consisting of sharing EHRs with patients, and with an outcome in one of the six domains of quality of care. DATA ANALYSIS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Title and abstract screening were performed by two pairs of investigators and assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. For each domain, a narrative synthesis of the results was performed, and significant differences in results between low risk and high/unclear risk of bias studies were tested (t-test, p<0.05). Continuous outcomes evaluated in four studies or more (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP)) were pooled as weighted mean difference (WMD) using random effects meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses were performed for low risk of bias studies, and long-term interventions only (lasting more than 12 months). RESULTS: Twenty studies were included (17 387 participants). The domain most frequently assessed was effectiveness (n=14), and the least were timeliness and equity (n=0). Inconsistent results were found for patient-centredness outcomes (ie, satisfaction, activation, self-efficacy, empowerment or health literacy), with 54.5% of the studies (n=6) demonstrating a beneficial effect. Meta-analyses showed a beneficial effect in effectiveness by reducing absolute values of HbA1c (unit: %; WMD=-0.316; 95% CI -0.540 to -0.093, p=0.005, I2=0%), which remained significant in the sensitivity analyses for low risk of bias studies (WMD= -0.405; 95% CI -0.711 to -0.099), and long-term interventions only (WMD=-0.272; 95% CI -0.482 to -0.062). A significant reduction of absolute values of SBP (unit: mm Hg) was found but lost in sensitivity analysis for studies with low risk of bias (WMD= -1.375; 95% CI -2.791 to 0.041). No significant effect was found for DBP (unit: mm Hg; WMD=-0.918; 95% CI -2.078 to 0.242, p=0.121, I2=0%). Concerning efficiency, most studies (80%, n=4) found either a reduction of healthcare usage or no change. A beneficial effect was observed in a range of safety outcomes (ie, general adherence, medication safety), but not in medication adherence. The proportion of studies reporting a beneficial effect did not differ between low risk and high/unclear risk studies, for the domains evaluated. DISCUSSION: Our analysis supports that sharing EHRs with patients is effective in reducing HbA1c levels, a major predictor of mortality in type 2 diabetes (mean decrease of -0.405, unit: %) and could improve patient safety. More studies are necessary to enhance meta-analytical power and assess the impact in other domains of care. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO (CRD42017070092).

Health Care Professionals' Perspectives on the Secondary Use of Health Records to Improve Quality and Safety of Care in England: Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Health care professionals (HCPs) are often patients' first point of contact in what concerns the communication of the purposes, benefits, and risks of sharing electronic health records (EHRs) for nondirect care purposes. Their engagement is fundamental to ensure patients' buy-in and a successful implementation of health care data sharing schemes. However, their views on this subject are seldom evaluated. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore HCPs' perspectives on the secondary uses of health care data in England. Specifically, we aimed to assess their knowledge on its purposes and the main concerns about data sharing processes. METHODS: A total of 30 interviews were conducted between March 27, 2017, and April 7, 2017, using a Web-based interview platform and following a topic guide with open-ended questions. The participants represented a variety of geographic locations across England (London, West Midlands, East of England, North East England, and Yorkshire and the Humber), covering both primary and secondary care services. The transcripts were compiled verbatim and systematically reviewed by 2 independent reviewers using the framework analysis method to identify emerging themes. RESULTS: HCPs were knowledgeable about the possible secondary uses of data and highlighted its importance for patient profiling and tailored care, research, quality assurance, public health, and service delivery planning purposes. Main concerns toward data sharing included data accuracy, patients' willingness to share their records, challenges on obtaining free and informed consent, data security, lack of adequacy or understanding of current policies, and potential patient exposure and exploitation. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest a high level of HCPs' understanding about the purposes of data sharing for secondary purposes; however, some concerns still remain. A better understanding of HCPs' knowledge and concerns could inform national communication policies and improve tailoring to maximize efficiency and improve patients' buy-in.

Impact of sharing electronic health records with patients on the quality and safety of care: a systematic review and narrative synthesis protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Providing patients with access to electronic health records (EHRs) has emerged as a promising solution to improve quality of care and safety. As the efforts to develop and implement EHR-based data sharing platforms mature and scale up worldwide, there is a need to evaluate the impact of these interventions and to weigh their relative risks and benefits, in order to inform evidence-based health policies. The aim of this work is to systematically characterise and appraise the demonstrated benefits and risks of sharing EHR with patients, by mapping them across the six domains of quality of care of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) analytical framework (ie, patient-centredness, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness, equity and safety). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, HMIC, Medline/PubMed and PsycINFO databases will be searched from January 1997 to August 2017. Primary outcomes will include measures related with the six domains of quality of care of the IOM analytical framework. The quality of the studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, the ROBINS-I Tool and the Drummond's checklist. A narrative synthesis will be conducted for all included studies. Subgroup analysis will be performed by domain of quality of care domain and by time scale (ie, short-term, medium-term or long-term impact). The body of evidence will be summarised in a Summary of Findings table and its strength assessed according to the GRADE criteria. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review does not require ethical approval as it will summarise published studies with non-identifiable data. This protocol complies with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines. Findings will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations, and patient partners will be included in summarising the research findings into lay summaries and reports. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017070092.