Using Health Information Technology to Foster Engagement: Patients' Experiences with an Active Patient Health Record.

Personal health records (PHRs) typically employ "passive" communication strategies, such as non-personalized medical text, rather than direct patient engagement in care. Currently there is a call for more active PHRs that directly engage patients in an effort to improve their health by offering elements such as personalized medical information, health coaches, and secure messaging with primary care providers. As part of a randomized clinical trial comparing "passive" with "active" PHRs, we explore patients' experiences with using an "active" PHR known as HealthTrak. The "passive" elements of this PHR included problem lists, medication lists, information about patient allergies and immunizations, medical and surgical histories, lab test results, health reminders, and secure messaging. The active arm included all of these elements and added personalized alerts delivered through the secure messaging platform to patients for services coming due based on various demographic features (including age and sex) and chronic medical conditions. Our participants were part of the larger clinical trial and were eligible if they had been randomized to the active PHR arm, one that included regular personalized alerts. We conducted focus group discussions on the benefits of this active PHR for patients who are at risk for cardiovascular disease. Forty-one patients agreed to participate and were organized into five separate focus group sessions. Three main themes emerged from the qualitatively analyzed focus groups: participants reported that the active PHR promoted better communication with providers; enabled them to more effectively partner with their providers; and helped them become more proactive about tracking their health information. In conclusion, patients reported improved communication, partnership with their providers, and a sense of self-management, thus adding insights for PHR designers hoping to address low adoption rates and other patient barriers to the development and use of the technology.

Understanding the challenges to facilitating active learning in the resident conferences: a qualitative study of internal medicine faculty and resident perspectives.

BACKGROUND: In the Next Accreditation System, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education outlines milestones for medical knowledge and requires regular didactic sessions in residency training. There are many challenges to facilitating active learning in resident conferences, and we need to better understand resident learning preferences and faculty perspectives on facilitating active learning. The goal of this study was to identify challenges to facilitating active learning in resident conferences, both through identifying specific implementation barriers and identifying differences in perspective between faculty and residents on effective teaching and learning strategies. METHODS: The investigators invited core residency faculty to participate in focus groups. The investigators used a semistructured guide to facilitate discussion about learning preferences and teaching perspectives in the conference setting and used an 'editing approach' within a grounded theory framework to qualitative analysis to code the transcripts and analyze the results. Data were compared to previously collected data from seven resident focus groups. RESULTS: Three focus groups with 20 core faculty were conducted. We identified three domains pertaining to facilitating active learning in resident conferences: barriers to facilitating active learning formats, similarities and differences in faculty and resident learning preferences, and divergence between faculty and resident opinions about effective teaching strategies. Faculty identified several setting, faculty, and resident barriers to facilitating active learning in resident conferences. When compared to residents, faculty expressed similar learning preferences; the main differences were in motivations for conference attendance and type of content. Resident preferences and faculty perspectives differed on the amount of information appropriate for lecture and the role of active participation in resident conferences. CONCLUSION: This study highlights several challenges to facilitating active learning in resident conferences and provides insights for residency faculty who seek to transform the conference learning environment within their residency program.

Understanding resident learning preferences within an internal medicine noon conference lecture series: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The lecture remains the most common approach for didactic offerings in residency programs despite conflicting evidence about the effectiveness of this format. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore the perspectives of internal medicine residents toward conferences held in the lecture format. METHODS: The investigators invited internal medicine residents (N  =  144) to participate in focus groups discussing their perspectives about noon conference lectures. The investigators used a semistructured guide to ask about motivations for attendance and effectiveness of noon conferences, transcribed the recordings, coded the discussions, and analyzed the results. RESULTS: Seven focus groups with a total of 41 residents were held. This identified 4 major domains: (1) motivations for attendance; (2) appropriate content; (3) effective teaching methods; and (4) perspectives on active participation. Residents' motivations were categorized into external factors, including desire for a break and balance to their workload, and intrinsic attributes, including the learning opportunity, topic, and speaker. Appropriate content was described as clinically relevant, practical, and presenting a balance of evidence. Identified effective teaching methods included shorter teaching sessions focused on high-yield learning points structured around cases and questions. While active participation increases residents' perceived level of stress, the benefits of this format include increased attention and learning. CONCLUSIONS: This study furthers our knowledge of the learning preferences of internal medicine residents within the changing environment of residency education and can be used in conjunction with principles of adult learning to reform how we deliver core medical knowledge.