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.

Detecting adverse events using information technology.

CONTEXT: Although patient safety is a major problem, most health care organizations rely on spontaneous reporting, which detects only a small minority of adverse events. As a result, problems with safety have remained hidden. Chart review can detect adverse events in research settings, but it is too expensive for routine use. Information technology techniques can detect some adverse events in a timely and cost-effective way, in some cases early enough to prevent patient harm. OBJECTIVE: To review methodologies of detecting adverse events using information technology, reports of studies that used these techniques to detect adverse events, and study results for specific types of adverse events. DESIGN: Structured review. METHODOLOGY: English-language studies that reported using information technology to detect adverse events were identified using standard techniques. Only studies that contained original data were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adverse events, with specific focus on nosocomial infections, adverse drug events, and injurious falls. RESULTS: Tools such as event monitoring and natural language processing can inexpensively detect certain types of adverse events in clinical databases. These approaches already work well for some types of adverse events, including adverse drug events and nosocomial infections, and are in routine use in a few hospitals. In addition, it appears likely that these techniques will be adaptable in ways that allow detection of a broad array of adverse events, especially as more medical information becomes computerized. CONCLUSION: Computerized detection of adverse events will soon be practical on a widespread basis.

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.

Primary care clinician attitudes towards ambulatory computerized physician order entry.

Ambulatory computerized physician order entry (ACPOE) represents one strategy to improve physician ordering practices, compliance with guidelines, and patient safety. We surveyed primary care physicians (PCPs) regarding attitudes towards ACPOE and its various features. Most PCPs did not have systems for tracking test results and were concerned about missed tests. However, there was concern that ACPOE might be time consuming, and only one-third of PCPs felt that ACPOE features would be very useful. Speed and workflow issues will be important contributors to the success of ACPOE. In addition, physician buy-in to the utility of its various features will need to be strengthened.

How accurate is information that patients contribute to their Electronic Health Record?

Increased patient interaction with medical records and the advent of personal health records (PHRs) may increase patients' ability to contribute valid information to their Electronic Medical Record (EHR) medical record. Patient input through a secure connection, whether it be a patient portal or PHR, will integrate many aspects of a patient's health and may help lessen the information gap between patients and providers. Patient reported data should be considered a viable method of enhancing documentation but will not likely be as complete and accurate as more comprehensive data-exchange between providers.

Impact of an Electronic Health Record on oncologists' clinic time.

The use of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) has been widely advocated to transform health-care delivery by improving quality, safety, and efficiency. Compared to a paper-based system, EHRs offer better access to clinical data and facilitate order entry and decision support. However, the benefits provided by EHRs do not eliminate the need to assess how such systems alter clinician time utilization. A major barrier to EHR use has been the concern that the EHR will take longer to use than paper-based systems. Few studies have addressed this issue in specialty clinic settings. We performed a time-motion study to evaluate how oncologists' time utilization differed before and after EHR implementation.

Primary care physician time utilization before and after implementation of an electronic health record: a time-motion study.

Despite benefits associated with the use of electronic health records (EHRs), one major barrier to adoption is the concern that EHRs may take longer for physicians to use than paper-based systems. To address this issue, we performed a time-motion study in five primary care clinics. Twenty physicians were observed and specific activities were timed during a clinic session before and after EHR implementation. Surveys evaluated physicians' perceptions regarding the EHR. Post-implementation, the adjusted mean overall time spent per patient during clinic sessions decreased by 0.5 min (p=0.86; 95% confidence interval [-5.05, 6.04]) from a pre-intervention adjusted average of 27.55 min (SE=2.1) to a post-intervention adjusted average of 27.05 min (SE=1.6). A majority of survey respondents believed EHR use results in quality improvement, yet only 29% reported that EHR documentation takes the same amount of time or less compared to the paper-based system. While the EHR did not require more time for physicians during a clinic session, further studies should assess the EHR's potential impact on non-clinic time.

Implementing patient access to electronic health records under HIPAA: lessons learned.

In 2001, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) emphasized the need for patients to have greater control over their health information. We describe a Boston healthcare system's approach to providing patients access to their electronic health records (EHRs) via Patient Gateway, a secure, Web-based portal. Implemented in 19 clinic sites to date, Patient Gateway allows patients to access information from their medical charts via the Internet in a secure manner. Since 2002, over 19,000 patients have enrolled in Patient Gateway, more than 125,000 patients have logged into the system, and over 37,000 messages have been sent by patients to their practices. There have been no major security concerns. By providing access to EHR data, secure systems like Patient Gateway allow patients a greater role in their healthcare process, as envisioned by the IOM and HIPAA.

Physicians' perceptions toward electronic communication with patients.

Despite the widespread use of email, electronic communication between physicians and patients is not part of the standard physician-patient relationship in the United States. Increased use of email may improve physician-patient communication, which is associated with improved patient satisfaction and health status. Evaluating email communication in this context is vital to minimizing potential risks and maximizing benefit to physicians and patients. We evaluated email use between physicians and patients, and physicians perceptions of the value and issues surrounding this form of communication in order to identify issues that would facilitate and improve electronic communication.