Characterizing Patient-Clinician Communication in Secure Medical Messages: Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient-clinician secure messaging is an important function in patient portals and enables patients and clinicians to communicate on a wide spectrum of issues in a timely manner. With its growing adoption and patient engagement, it is time to comprehensively study the secure messages and user behaviors in order to improve patient-centered care. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to analyze the secure messages sent by patients and clinicians in a large multispecialty health system at Mayo Clinic, Rochester. METHODS: We performed message-based, sender-based, and thread-based analyses of more than 5 million secure messages between 2010 and 2017. We summarized the message volumes, patient and clinician population sizes, message counts per patient or clinician, as well as the trends of message volumes and user counts over the years. In addition, we calculated the time distribution of clinician-sent messages to understand their workloads at different times of a day. We also analyzed the time delay in clinician responses to patient messages to assess their communication efficiency and the back-and-forth rounds to estimate the communication complexity. RESULTS: During 2010-2017, the patient portal at Mayo Clinic, Rochester experienced a significant growth in terms of the count of patient users and the total number of secure messages sent by patients and clinicians. Three clinician categories, namely "physician-primary care," "registered nurse-specialty," and "physician-specialty," bore the majority of message volume increase. The patient portal also demonstrated growing trends in message counts per patient and clinician. The "nurse practitioner or physician assistant-primary care" and "physician-primary care" categories had the heaviest per-clinician workload each year. Most messages by the clinicians were sent from 7 AM to 5 PM during a day. Yet, between 5 PM and 7 PM, the physicians sent 7.0% (95,785/1,377,006) of their daily messages, and the nurse practitioner or physician assistant sent 5.4% (22,121/408,526) of their daily messages. The clinicians replied to 72.2% (1,272,069/1,761,739) patient messages within 1 day and 90.6% (1,595,702/1,761,739) within 3 days. In 95.1% (1,499,316/1,576,205) of the message threads, the patients communicated with their clinicians back and forth for no more than 4 rounds. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found steady increases in patient adoption of the secure messaging system and the average workload per clinician over 8 years. However, most clinicians responded timely to meet the patients' needs. Our study also revealed differential patient-clinician communication patterns across different practice roles and care settings. These findings suggest opportunities for care teams to optimize messaging tasks and to balance the workload for optimal efficiency.

Portal Message Language Use Prior to Suicide, Suicide Attempts, and Hospitalization for Depression.

Introduction: Previous research suggests patients may be willing to communicate serious psychiatric concerns through patient portals. Methods: Retrospective chart review of portal messages sent by patients who had an emergency department (ED) visit or hospitalization for depression, self-harm, or suicidality or had a completed suicide (cases) was reviewed for content that was suggestive of depression or self-harm and language indicating emotional distress. Comparison with a randomly selected group (controls) was performed. Results: During the study period 420 messages were sent by 149 patients within 30 days of death by suicide, ED visit, and/or hospitalization related to depression, suicidality, or suicide attempt. Thirteen patients died by suicide but only 23% (3 of 13) sent one or more portal messages within 30 days before their death. None mentioned thoughts of self-harm. There were 271 messages sent by patients who were hospitalized, 142 messages by those who presented to the ED, and 56 messages patients who attempted suicide. Patient messages from cases were more likely than messages from controls to convey a depressed mood (17.1% vs. 3.1%, odds ratio 6.5; 95% confidence interval 3.6-11.9, p < 0.0001), thoughts of suicide or self-harm (4.8% vs. 0% p < 0.0001), or have a distressed tone (24.0% vs. 1.7%, odds ratio 18.7; 95% confidence interval 8.6-41, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Patient portal messages from patients with subsequent hospitalizations for depression and suicidality do report thoughts of depression, distress, and thoughts of self-harm. However, portal use before completed suicide was not helpful at identifying at-risk patients although total numbers were small.

Evaluating an Electronic Health Record Intervention for Management of Heart Failure Among Veterans.

Background:We studied the feasibility of using the Veteran Health Administration's electronic health record (EHR), My HealtheVet, as an educational and monitoring tool for veterans with heart failure (HF).Methods:We enrolled 120 HF patients with a mean age (±standard deviation): 64.8 ± 9.6, range: 41-91 years. There were 105 (87.5%) non-Hispanics, 15 (12.5%) Hispanics, 91 (75.8%) whites, and 20 (16.5%) blacks, and 62 (51.7%) were married. Study participants received educational material on managing their HF and were monitored on their weight and HF symptoms weekly. Surveys on My HealtheVet use and secondary outcomes including knowledge of their illness, quality of life (QoL), and self-efficacy were conducted at baseline and 26 weeks after enrollment.Results:Among the participants, 55 (45.8%) had used My HealtheVet. The number of weeks each user responded to the weekly messages by the care coordinator ranged from 1 (4%) to 26 (100%) with a median of 8. Secondary outcome data were available for 54 patients (24 users and 30 nonusers) who participated in both baseline and 26-week surveys. There was a significant improvement in QoL (p < 0.01) among users of My HealtheVet compared with nonusers. There were no significant differences with respect to self-efficacy or HF knowledge. Use of My HealtheVet and ease in using the HealtheVet portal increased from baseline to follow-up.Conclusions:EHR-based interventions have potential for HF monitoring and case management, and may be feasible in improving QoL for patients.

Differences in Patient Secure Message Volume Among Otolaryngologists: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify differences in inbox and secure message burden among otolaryngologists based on demographics and subspecialty over 4 years. METHODS: Inbox data were queried from January 2019 until December 2022. Otolaryngologists were categorized into cohorts by area of practice and gender. All inbox tasks, secure messages, and clinical encounters were collected and compared by gender, practice type, and years in practice. Means were compared using t-tests and chi-squared tests. RESULTS: Of the 128 physicians, 45.7% were comprehensive otolaryngologists and 61.3% were male. The most common subspecialties were facial plastics (15.6%), oncology (8.6%), and otology (7.8%). Otolaryngologists had an average of 143.5 inbox tasks per month, with 97.2 (67.7%) of them being secure messages, resulting in an average of 1.14 inbox tasks and 0.80 secure messages per clinical encounter. The ratio of secure messages per clinical encounter was consistent across all specialties except oncology (1.10, P = .003). Otology (0.86, P = .032) and facial plastics (0.95, P = .028) had significantly lower ratios of inbox tasks to clinical encounters when compared to their colleagues, while oncology had a higher ratio (1.70, P < .001). No significant differences in inbox burden were observed between genders, years in practice, or languages spoken. Secure messages steadily increased over the study period. CONCLUSION: Inbox burden for otolaryngologists primarily stems from patient secure messages and varies across subspecialties. Considerations should be made to the inbox burden of head and neck oncologists. The implementation of support systems for inbox management could improve the imbalance between clinical and non-clinical responsibilities in otolaryngology. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Retrospective Cohort Study.

The Impact of Secure Messaging in the Treatment of Patients With Diabetes Within a Primary Care Setting: Protocol for a Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes-a high-burden chronic disease-requires lifetime active management involving the use of different tools and health care resources to improve patient health outcomes. Recent studies have demonstrated promising results regarding the impact of the use of virtual care technology on the treatment of chronic diseases, such as diabetes. However, it is unclear whether the use of technologies, such as secure messaging, improves the quality of care and reduces diabetes-related costs to the health care system. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our scoping review is to explore what is known about the use of secure messaging in the treatment of diabetes within the primary care setting and how its impact has been assessed from the patient and health system perspectives. Our review aims to understand to what extent secure messaging improves the quality of diabetes care. METHODS: Our scoping review will follow the 6-step Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework, as well as the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and their recommended tools. The tools to guide the development and reporting of the review in a structured way will include the Population, Concept, and Context framework and the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines and checklist. The search strategy was developed iteratively in collaboration with a professional information specialist. Furthermore, a peer review of electronic search strategies was also conducted by an independent, third-party, professional information specialist. A systematic literature search will be conducted against databases, including Ovid MEDLINE ALL, Embase, APA PsycINFO, Cochrane Library on Wiley, CINAHL on EBSCO, and PubMed. Grey literature sources will also be searched for relevant literature. Literature on the use of secure messaging in the treatment of diabetes (types 1 and 2) within a primary care setting will be included. Two reviewers will review the literature based on the inclusion criteria in the following two steps: (1) title and abstract review and (2) full-text review. Discrepancies will be discussed to reach consensus where possible; otherwise, a third reviewer will resolve the dispute. RESULTS: The results and a final report are expected to be completed and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal in 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: The review will examine existing literature to identify the impact of secure messaging in diabetes treatment within primary care settings. Research gaps will also be identified to determine if there is a need for further studies. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/42339.

Patient-generated secure messages and eVisits on a patient portal: are patients at risk?

BACKGROUND: Patient portals are becoming increasingly common, but the safety of patient messages and eVisits has not been well studied. Unlike patient-to-nurse telephonic communication, patient messages and eVisits involve an asynchronous process that could be hazardous if patients were using it for time-sensitive symptoms such as chest pain or dyspnea. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 7322 messages (6430 secure messages and 892 eVisits). To assess the overall risk associated with the messages, we looked for deaths within 30 days of the message and hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits within 7 days following the message. We also examined message content for symptoms of chest pain, breathing concerns, and other symptoms associated with high risk. RESULTS: Two deaths occurred within 30 days of a patient-generated message, but were not related to the message. There were six hospitalizations related to a previous secure message (0.09% of secure messages), and two hospitalizations related to a previous eVisit (0.22% of eVisits). High-risk symptoms were present in 3.5% of messages but a subject line search to identify these high-risk messages had a sensitivity of only 15% and a positive predictive value of 29%. CONCLUSIONS: Patients use portal messages 3.5% of the time for potentially high-risk symptoms of chest pain, breathing concerns, abdominal pain, palpitations, lightheadedness, and vomiting. Death, hospitalization, or an ED visit was an infrequent outcome following a secure message or eVisit. Screening the message subject line for high-risk symptoms was not successful in identifying high-risk message content.