Randomized controlled trial of health maintenance reminders provided directly to patients through an electronic PHR.

BACKGROUND: Provider and patient reminders can be effective in increasing rates of preventive screenings and vaccinations. However, the effect of patient-directed electronic reminders is understudied. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether providing reminders directly to patients via an electronic Personal Health Record (PHR) improved adherence to care recommendations. DESIGN: We conducted a cluster randomized trial without blinding from 2005 to 2007 at 11 primary care practices in the Partners HealthCare system. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 21,533 patients with access to a PHR were invited to the study, and 3,979 (18.5%) consented to enroll. INTERVENTIONS: Patients in the intervention arm received health maintenance (HM) reminders via a secure PHR "eJournal," which allowed them to review and update HM and family history information. Patients in the active control arm received access to an eJournal that allowed them to input and review information related to medications, allergies and diabetes management. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was adherence to guideline-based care recommendations. KEY RESULTS: Intention-to-treat analysis showed that patients in the intervention arm were significantly more likely to receive mammography (48.6% vs 29.5%, p = 0.006) and influenza vaccinations (22.0% vs 14.0%, p = 0.018). No significant improvement was observed in rates of other screenings. Although Pap smear completion rates were higher in the intervention arm (41.0% vs 10.4%, p < 0.001), this finding was no longer significant after excluding women's health clinics. Additional on-treatment analysis showed significant increases in mammography (p = 0.019) and influenza vaccination (p = 0.015) for intervention arm patients who opened an eJournal compared to control arm patients, but no differences for any measure among patients who did not open an eJournal. CONCLUSIONS: Providing patients with HM reminders via a PHR may be effective in improving some elements of preventive care.

Patient perceptions of a personal health record: a test of the diffusion of innovation model.

BACKGROUND: Personal health records (PHRs) have emerged as an important tool with which patients can electronically communicate with their doctors and doctor's offices. However, there is a lack of theoretical and empirical research on how patients perceive the PHR and the differences in perceptions between users and non-users of the PHR. OBJECTIVE: To apply a theoretical model, the diffusion of innovation model, to the study of PHRs and conduct an exploratory empirical study on the applicability of the model to the study of perceptions of PHRs. A secondary objective was to assess whether perceptions of PHRs predict the perceived value of the PHR for communicating with the doctor's office. METHODS: We first developed a survey capturing perceptions of PHR use and other factors such as sociodemographic characteristics, access and use of technology, perceived innovativeness in the domain of information technology, and perceptions of privacy and security. We then conducted a cross-sectional survey (N = 1500). Patients were grouped into five groups of 300: PHR users (innovators, other users, and laggards), rejecters, and non-adopters. We applied univariate statistical analysis (Pearson chi-square and one-way ANOVA) to assess differences among groups and used multivariate statistical techniques (factor analysis and multiple regression analysis) to assess the presence of factors identified by the diffusion of innovation model and the predictors of our dependent variable (value of PHR for communicating with the doctor's office). RESULTS: Of the 1500 surveys, 760 surveys were returned for an overall response rate of 51%. Computer use among non-adopters (75%) was lower than that among PHR users (99%) and rejecters (92%) (P < .001). Non-adopters also reported a lower score on personal innovativeness in information technology (mean = 2.8) compared to 3.6 and 3.1, respectively, for users and rejecters (P < .001). Four factors identified by the diffusion of innovation model emerged in the factor analysis: ease of use, relative advantage, observability, and trialability. PHR users perceived greater ease of use and relative advantage of the PHR than rejecters and non-adopters (P < .001). Multiple regression analysis showed the following factors as significant positive predictors of the value of PHR for communicating with the doctor's office: relative advantage, ease of use, trialability, perceptions of privacy and security, age, and computer use. CONCLUSION: Our study found that the diffusion of innovation model fits the study of perceptions of the PHR and provides a suitable theoretical and empirical framework to identify the factors that distinguish PHR users from non-users. The ease of use and relative advantage offered by the PHR emerged as the most important domains among perceptions of PHR use and in predicting the value of the PHR. Efforts to improve uptake and use of PHRs should focus on strategies that enhance the ease of use of PHRs and that highlight the relative advantages of PHRs.

Opportunities for the use of health information technology to support research.

In the last decade, expanding use of health information technology (IT) across the United States has created opportunities for use of electronic health data for health services and biomedical research, but efforts may be hampered by limited data access, data quality, and system functionality. We identify five opportunities to advance the use of health IT for health services and biomedical research, which informed a federal government-led, collaborative effort to develop a relevant policy and development agenda. In particular, the health IT infrastructure should more effectively support the use of electronic health data for research; provide adaptable technologies; incorporate relevant research-related functionality; support patient and caregiver engagement in research; and support effective integration of knowledge into practice. While not exhaustive, these represent important opportunities that the biomedical and health informatics communities can pursue to better leverage health IT and electronic health data for research.

Consumer-Mediated Data Exchange for Research: Current State of US Law, Technology, and Trust.

A compendium of US laws and regulations offers increasingly strong support for the concept that researchers can acquire the electronic health record data that their studies need directly from the study participants using technologies and processes called consumer-mediated data exchange. This data acquisition method is particularly valuable for studies that need complete longitudinal electronic records for all their study participants who individually and collectively receive care from multiple providers in the United States. In such studies, it is logistically infeasible for the researcher to receive necessary data directly from each provider, including providers who may not have the capability, capacity, or interest in supporting research. This paper is a tutorial to inform the researcher who faces these data acquisition challenges about the opportunities offered by consumer-mediated data exchange. It outlines 2 approaches and reviews the current state of provider- and consumer-facing technologies that are necessary to support each approach. For one approach, the technology is developed and estimated to be widely available but could raise trust concerns among research organizations or their institutional review boards because of the current state of US law applicable to consumer-facing technologies. For the other approach, which does not elicit the same trust concerns, the necessary technology is emerging and a pilot is underway. After reading this paper, the researcher who has not been following these developments should have a good understanding of the legal, regulatory, technology, and trust issues surrounding consumer-mediated data exchange for research, with an awareness of what is potentially possible now, what is not possible now, and what could change in the future. The researcher interested in trying consumer-mediated data exchange will also be able to anticipate and respond to an anticipated barrier: the trust concerns that their own organizations could raise.

An effort to improve electronic health record medication list accuracy between visits: patients' and physicians' response.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of a secure web-based patient portal called Patient Gateway (PG) in producing more accurate medication lists in the electronic health record (EHR), and whether sending primary care physicians (PCPs) a clinical message updating them on the information their patients provided caused physicians to update the EHR medication list. METHODS: We compared the medication list accuracy of 84 patients using PG with that of 79 who were not. Patient-reported medication discrepancies were noted in the EHR in a clinical note by research staff and a message was sent to the participants' PCPs notifying them of the updated information. RESULTS: Participants were taking 665 medications according to the EHR, and reported 273 additional medications. A lower percentage of PG users' drug regimens (54% versus 61%, p=0.07) were reported to be correct than those of PG non-users, although PG users took significantly more medications than their non-user counterparts (5.0 versus 3.1 medications, p=0.0001). Providing patient-reported information in a clinical note and sending a clinical message to the primary care doctor did not result in PCPs updating their patients' EHR medication lists. CONCLUSIONS: Medication lists in EHRs were frequently inaccurate and most frequently overlooked over-the-counter (OTC) and non-prescription drugs. Patients using a secure portal had just as many discrepancies between medication lists and self-report as those who did not, and notifying physicians of discrepancies via e-mail had no effect.

Design and implementation of a web-based patient portal linked to an electronic health record designed to improve medication safety: the Patient Gateway medications module.

In this article we describe the background, design, and preliminary results of a medications module within Patient Gateway (PG), a patient portal linked to an electronic health record (EHR). The medications module is designed to improve the accuracy of medication lists within the EHR, reduce adverse drug events and improve patient-provider communication regarding medications and allergies in several primary care practices within a large integrated healthcare delivery network. This module allows patients to view and modify the list of medications and allergies from the EHR, report non-adherence, side effects and other medication-related problems and easily communicate this information to providers, who can verify the information and update the EHR as needed. Usage and satisfaction data indicate that patients found the module easy to use, felt that it led to their providers having more accurate information about them and enabled them to feel more prepared for their forthcoming visits. Further analyses will determine the effects of this module on important medication-related outcomes and identify further enhancements needed to improve on this approach.

Who adopts a patient portal?: An application of the diffusion of innovation model.

BACKGROUND: Patient portals have emerged as an important tool through which patients can access online health information and engage in their health care. However, we know little about how patients perceive portals and whether patient perceptions might influence portal adoption. OBJECTIVE: Apply the diffusion of innovation (DOI) theory to assess perceptions of adopters and non-adopters of a patient portal. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of adopters and non-adopters of the portal. Our survey consisted of perceived attributes from the DOI theory, socio-demographic characteristics and patient perceptions of technology adoption. RESULTS: Three factors representing perceived attributes from DOI theory accounted for 73% of the variance in the data: Factor 1 - Relative Advantage (27%); Factor 2 - Ease of Use (24%) and Factor 3 - Trialability (22%). Adopters perceived greater Relative Advantage [mean (SD)] = 3.8 (0.71) versus 3.2 (0.89), p < 0.001, Ease of Use = 4.1 (0.71) versus 3.3 (0.95), p < 0.001 and Trialability = 4.0 (0.57) versus 3.4 (0.99), p < 0.001 than non-adopters. In multivariate modelling, age [OR = 3.75, 95% CI: (2.17, 6.46), p < 0.001] and income [OR = 1.87, 95% CI: (1.17, 3.00), p < 0.01] predicted adoption of the portal. Among DOI factors, Relative advantage predicted adoption of the portal [OR = 1.48, 95% CI: (1.03, 2.11), p < 0.05]. CONCLUSION: Patients will adopt a patient portal if they perceive it to offer a relative advantage over existing practices such as telephoning or visiting the doctor's office. Organisations seeking to increase the adoption of patient portals should implement strategies to promote the relative advantage of portals as, for example, through posters in waiting and exam rooms. A digital divide in the adoption of patient portals may exist with respect to age and income.

Enhancing Health IT Functionality for Children: The 2015 Children's EHR Format.

Electronic health record (EHR) use throughout the United States has advanced considerably, but functionality to support the optimal care of children has been slower to develop and deploy. A previous team of experts systematically identified gaps in EHR functionality during collaborative work from 2010 to 2013 that produced the Children's EHR Format (Format), funded under the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, Public Law 111-3. After that, a team of practitioners, software developers, health policy leaders, and other stakeholders examined the Format's exhaustive list of 547 EHR functional requirements in 26 topic areas and found them to be valuable but in need of further refinement and prioritization. Work began in 2014 to develop a shortened high priority list of requirements and provide guidance to improve their use. Through a modified Delphi process that included key document review, selection criteria, multiple rounds of voting, and small group discussion, a multistakeholder work group identified and refined 47 items on the basis of earlier requirements to form the 2015 Children's EHR Format Priority List and developed 16 recommended uses of the Format. The full report of the Format enhancement activities is publicly available. In this article, we aim to promote awareness of these high priority EHR functional requirements for the care of children, sharpen industry focus on adopting these changes, and align all stakeholders in prioritizing specific health information technology functionalities including those essential for well-child preventive care, medication management, immunization tracking, and growth data for specific pediatric subgroups.

Sharing electronic laboratory results in a patient portal--a feasibility pilot.

Surveys of patients consistently demonstrate a very strong interest in having secure electronic access to their own laboratory test results. In recent years, a number of health care providers and lab service centers have offered this capability, which now extends to millions of patients in the United States. Yet, little has been published on the methods of making lab results available. This case report identifies the objectives, methods, and results of a feasibility pilot conducted at Partners Healthcare from May to September, 2006. A candidate set of results were identified, approved for release, programmed into Patient Gateway, Partners' secure patient portal, and studied. Patient and practice feedback was positive. No noticeable rise in patient concerns was observed by practice staff or through patient surveys. One-half of patients who viewed results accessed reference information linked to a result. Organizational and practice-level issues necessary to support continued rollout are described.

Do physicians take action on high risk family history information provided by patients outside of a clinic visit?

Clinically relevant family history information is frequently missing or not readily available in electronic health records. Improving the availability of family history information is important for optimum care of many patients. Family history information on five conditions was collected in a survey from 163 primary care patients. Overall, 53% of patients had no family history information in the electronic health record (EHR) either on the patient's problem list or within a templated family history note. New information provided by patients resulted in an increase in the patient's risk level for 32% of patients with a positive family history of breast cancer, 40% for coronary artery disease, 50% for colon cancer, 74% for diabetes, and 95% each for osteoporosis and glaucoma. Informing physicians of new family history information outside of a clinic visit through an electronic clinical message and note in the EHR was not sufficient to achieve recommended follow-up care. Better tools need to be developed to facilitate the collection of family history information and to support clinical decision-making and action.

Empowering patients to improve the quality of their care: design and implementation of a shared health maintenance module in a US integrated healthcare delivery network.

We describe a health maintenance module within a personal health record designed to improve the quality of routine preventive care for patients in a large integrated healthcare delivery network. This module allows patients and their providers to share an online medical record and decision support tools. Our preliminary results indicate that this approach is well-accepted by patients and their providers and has significant potential to facilitate patient-provider communication and improve the quality of routine health maintenance care. Further research will determine the long term impact and sustainability of this approach.

Design and implementation of a web-based patient portal linked to an ambulatory care electronic health record: patient gateway for diabetes collaborative care.

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of expert guidelines and widespread diabetes quality improvement efforts, care of patients with diabetes remains suboptimal. Two key barriers to care that may be amenable to informatics-based interventions include (1) lack of patient engagement with therapeutic care plans and (2) lack of medication adjustment by physicians ("clinical inertia") during clinical encounters. METHODS: The authors describe the conceptual framework, design, implementation, and analysis plan for a diabetes patient web-portal linked directly to the electronic health record (EHR) of a large academic medical center via secure Internet access designed to overcome barriers to effective diabetes care. RESULTS: Partners HealthCare System (Boston, MA), a multi-hospital health care network comprising several thousand physicians caring for over 1 million individual patients, has developed a comprehensive patient web-portal called Patient Gateway that allows patients to interact directly with their EHR via secure Internet access. Using this portal, a specific diabetes interface was designed to maximize patient engagement by importing the patient's current clinical data in an educational format, providing patient-tailored decision support, and enabling the patient to author a "Diabetes Care Plan." The physician view of the patient's Diabetes Care Plan was designed to be concise and to fit into typical EHR clinical workflow. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully designed and implemented a Diabetes Patient portal that allows direct interaction with our system's EHR. We are assessing the impact of this advanced informatics tool for collaborative diabetes care in a clinic-randomized controlled trial among 14 primary care practices within our integrated health care system.

Improving electronic health record (EHR) accuracy and increasing compliance with health maintenance clinical guidelines through patient access and input.

BACKGROUND: Health maintenance is crucial for preventing morbidity and premature mortality, but many patients do not receive preventive services at recommended intervals. One reason for this is the lack of up-to-date information accurately reflecting patients' history. Electronic health records (EHRs) can be useful, but are often incomplete. Patient input has the potential to improve the accuracy of this information. In this study, we assessed the current state of EHR completeness for preventive services and the added value of patient reported information. METHODS: Participants were sent a survey, pre-populated with health maintenance procedure information from their EHRs. They were asked to review this information and indicate whether it was accurate or if they had a procedure done more recently. Of 1098 patients recruited from a primary care practice, 163 returned the survey. When a patient reported a more recent test than was noted in the EHR, researchers updated the EHR to reflect the additional information. Data were also gathered from the EHR 6 months after surveys were completed to analyze whether providing due test information encouraged patients to get tested and vaccinated. A review of medical records was performed on a control group to analyze differences in adherence to preventive guidelines between those that were notified of their overdue status and those who were not notified. RESULTS: The EHR was frequently incomplete when compared to patient report. In particular, many patients were misidentified as being overdue for health maintenance procedures when they had obtained them in other places. Showing patients their information resulted in little impact on overall adherence. However, with the cumulative effects of additional patient-reported procedures and procedures performed after the survey, intervention patients had higher documented adherence rates for every procedure than the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Health maintenance data in EHRs were often incomplete. Patients were often able to provide useful information, demonstrating the value of patient contributions in keeping records up-to-date.

Opportunities to enhance patient and physician e-mail contact.

The purpose of our study was to evaluate how e-mail is currently used between physicians and patients in an integrated delivery system, and to identify developments that might promote increased use of this form of communication. A paper-based survey questionnaire was administered to 94 primary care physicians. We evaluated the role e-mail currently plays in a physician's typical work day, physician views on the impact of e-mail on phone use and the barriers to increasing the use of e-mail with patients. 76% of physicians surveyed responded. All respondents currently use e-mail. Close to 75% of physicians use e-mail with their patients, but the vast majority do so with only 1-5% of those patients. 50% of physicians believe that up to 25% of their patients would send e-mail to them if given the option, with an additional 37% believing that between 25% and 50% of patients would value this option. The main reported barriers to physician-patient e-mail related to workload, security and payment. Our survey findings indicate that with adequate pre-screening, triage, and reimbursement mechanisms physicians would be open to substantially increasing e-mail communication with patients.

Primary care physician attitudes towards using a secure web-based portal designed to facilitate electronic communication with patients.

BACKGROUND: Patient demand for email contact with physician practices is high. If physicians met this demand, improvements in communication, quality of care and patient satisfaction could result. However, physicians have typically been hesitant to communicate electronically with patients, largely due to concerns relating to workload, security and lack of compensation. GOAL: To assess physician attitudes towards electronic communication with patients six months after the implementation of an application called Patient Gateway. Patient Gateway allows patients to access an extract of their medical record and facilitates online communication with medical practices. METHODS: A paper-based survey was administered to the 43 primary care physicians in one integrated delivery system, with a 56% (24/43) response rate. RESULTS: Overall, physicians felt that Patient Gateway's impact on their practices was positive, especially in the areas of refill and referral request management and appointment scheduling. However, physicians are still hesitant to increase general electronic communication with patients; none opted to use Patient Gateway's general messaging function with patients, and those who had previously used outside systems to exchange emails with some patients continued to communicate with only a small proportion of their patient panel in this way. However, 38% of physicians already communicate with their own physicians via email, and another 19% would like to do so. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians' fears about being overwhelmed with messages were not realised. While physicians were generally enthusiastic about the application, none used it directly to communicate with patients. Over three-quarters of respondents indicated that they would be more enthusiastic about electronic communication with patients if this time were compensated.

A patient-controlled journal for an electronic medical record: issues and challenges.

Partners Healthcare System, Boston, MA, has developed a patient Web portal that features a patient-controlled electronic "journal" to allow patients to interact with their physician's electronic medical record. Patients can view and respond to health reminders, critique electronic chart information maintained by their doctor's office, enter additional clinical information, and prepare information summaries before an office visit. Creating shared information resources to support a collaborative care model required analysis of the business, architectural, and workflow requirements of the patient-controlled clinical portal and the physician-controlled electronic medical record system. In this paper we describe the challenges in aligning the two systems and serving the different user groups. Coupling the Patient Gateway system, serving over 8700 patients of 90 physicians as of September, 2003, with the Longitudinal Medical Record system, serving over 4000 physicians, has required a clear definition of user goals and workflow, well-defined interfaces, and careful consideration of system assumptions to succeed.

Personalized health care and health information technology policy: an exploratory analysis.

Personalized healthcare (PHC) is envisioned to enhance clinical practice decision-making using new genome-driven knowledge that tailors diagnosis, treatment, and prevention to the individual patient. In 2012, we conducted a focused environmental scan and informal interviews with fifteen experts to anticipate how PHC might impact health Information Technology (IT) policy in the United States. Findings indicatedthat PHC has a variable impact on current clinical practice, creates complex questions for providers, patients, and policy-makers, and will require a robust health IT infrastructure with advanced data architecture, clinical decision support, provider workflow tools, and re-use of clinical data for research. A number of health IT challenge areas were identified, along with five policy areas including: interoperable clinical decision support, standards for patient values and preferences, patient engagement, data transparency, and robust privacy and security.

Effects of an online personal health record on medication accuracy and safety: a cluster-randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of a personal health record (PHR)-linked medications module on medication accuracy and safety. DESIGN: From September 2005 to March 2007, we conducted an on-treatment sub-study within a cluster-randomized trial involving 11 primary care practices that used the same PHR. Intervention practices received access to a medications module prompting patients to review their documented medications and identify discrepancies, generating 'eJournals' that enabled rapid updating of medication lists during subsequent clinical visits. MEASUREMENTS: A sample of 267 patients who submitted medications eJournals was contacted by phone 3 weeks after an eligible visit and compared with a matched sample of 274 patients in control practices that received a different PHR-linked intervention. Two blinded physician adjudicators determined unexplained discrepancies between documented and patient-reported medication regimens. The primary outcome was proportion of medications per patient with unexplained discrepancies. RESULTS: Among 121,046 patients in eligible practices, 3979 participated in the main trial and 541 participated in the sub-study. The proportion of medications per patient with unexplained discrepancies was 42% in the intervention arm and 51% in the control arm (adjusted OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.94, p=0.01). The number of unexplained discrepancies per patient with potential for severe harm was 0.03 in the intervention arm and 0.08 in the control arm (adjusted RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.92, p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: When used, concordance between documented and patient-reported medication regimens and reduction in potentially harmful medication discrepancies can be improved with a PHR medication review tool linked to the provider's medical record. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00251875).

The digital divide in adoption and use of a personal health record.

BACKGROUND: Personal health records (PHRs) offer the potential to improve the patient experience and the quality of patient care. However, the "digital divide," the population-level gap in Internet and computer access, may prevent certain groups from accessing the PHR. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of a PHR within a northeastern health system. We compared adopters (ie, those activating a PHR account online) with nonadopters (ie, those who see a physician offering the PHR but do not activate an account). We further categorized adopters by intensity of PHR use, measured by number of log-ins and number of messages sent to physicians' practices. RESULTS: As of September 30, 2009, among 75,056 patients, 43% had adopted the PHR since 2002. Blacks and Hispanics were less likely to adopt the PHR compared with whites (odds ratio [OR], 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-0.55; and 0.64; 0.57-0.73, respectively), and those with lower annual income were less likely to adopt the PHR than were those with higher income. Compared with nonadopters, adopters were more likely to have more than 2 comorbidities (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.17-1.30). Use of an aggressive marketing strategy for PHR enrollment increased adoption nearly 3-fold (OR, 2.92; 95% CI, 1.58-5.40). Intensity of use was best predicted by increasing number of comorbidities, followed by race/ethnicity (whites more than blacks and Hispanics) and insurance status. We found no association between income and log-in frequency or secure messages sent. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing Internet availability, racial/ethnic minority patients adopted a PHR less frequently than white patients, and patients with the lowest annual income adopted a PHR less often than those with higher incomes. Among adopters, however, income did not have an effect on PHR use.

Variations in patient portal adoption in four primary care practices.

This case report reviews the patient portal adoption experiences of four primary care practices at Partners HealthCare during 2002 - 2009. Although each practice used the enterprise patient portal (Patient Gateway) and electronic health record, their patient enrollments varied substantially, as did their marketing approaches, new feature adoption, leadership approach, and staff involvement. Marketing limitations, leadership concerns, and limited staff engagement characterized the low-enrollment practices, but not the others. These factors, along with other practice characteristics such as location and patient demographics, should be explored in future research to identify best practices for successful adoption of a patient portal.