ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT: Health information technology (IT) is often proposed as a solution to fragmentation of care, and has been hypothesized to reduce readmission risk through better information flow. However, there are numerous distinct health IT capabilities, and it is unclear which, if any, are associated with lower readmission risk.To identify the specific health IT capabilities adopted by hospitals that are associated with hospital-level risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRRs) through path analyses using structural equation modeling.This STROBE-compliant retrospective cross-sectional study included non-federal U.S. acute care hospitals, based on their adoption of specific types of health IT capabilities self-reported in a 2013 American Hospital Association IT survey as independent variables. The outcome measure included the 2014 RSRRs reported on Hospital Compare website.A 54-indicator 7-factor structure of hospital health IT capabilities was identified by exploratory factor analysis, and corroborated by confirmatory factor analysis. Subsequent path analysis using Structural equation modeling revealed that a one-point increase in the hospital adoption of patient engagement capability latent scores (median path coefficient ßâ=â-0.086; 95% Confidence Interval, -0.162 to -0.008), including functionalities like direct access to the electronic health records, would generally lead to a decrease in RSRRs by 0.086%. However, computerized hospital discharge and information exchange capabilities with other inpatient and outpatient providers were not associated with readmission rates.These findings suggest that improving patient access to and use of their electronic health records may be helpful in improving hospital performance on readmission; however, computerized hospital discharge and information exchange among clinicians did not seem as beneficial - perhaps because of the quality or timeliness of information transmitted. Future research should use more recent data to study, not just adoption of health IT capabilities, but also whether their usage is associated with lower readmission risk. Understanding which capabilities impact readmission risk can help policymakers and clinical stakeholders better focus their scarce resources as they invest in health IT to improve care delivery.
Subject(s)
Hospitals/statistics & numerical data , Medical Informatics/statistics & numerical data , Patient Readmission/statistics & numerical data , Cross-Sectional Studies , Electronic Health Records/statistics & numerical data , Hospital Bed Capacity , Humans , Patient Access to Records/statistics & numerical data , Patient Participation/statistics & numerical data , Quality Indicators, Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Residence Characteristics , Retrospective Studies , United StatesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: To support patient-centred care, healthcare organisations increasingly offer patients access to data stored in the institutional electronic health record (EHR). OBJECTIVES: Primary objective 1. To assess the effects of providing adult patients with access to electronic health records (EHRs) alone or with additional functionalities on a range of patient, patient-provider, and health resource consumption outcomes, including patient knowledge and understanding, patient empowerment, patient adherence, patient satisfaction with care, adverse events, health-related quality of life, health-related outcomes, psychosocial health outcomes, health resource consumption, and patient-provider communication. Secondary objective 1. To assess whether effects of providing adult patients with EHR access alone versus EHR access with additional functionalities differ among patient groups according to age, educational level, or different status of disease (chronic or acute). SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus in June 2017 and in April 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and cluster-randomised trials of EHR access with or without additional functionalities for adults with any medical condition. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies with 78 to 4500 participants and follow-up from 3 to 24 months. Nine studies assessed the effects of EHR with additional functionalities, each addressing a subset of outcomes sought by this review. Five studies focused on patients with diabetes mellitus, four on patients with specific diseases, and one on all patients. All studies compared EHR access alone or with additional functionalities plus usual care versus usual care only. No studies assessing the effects of EHR access alone versus EHR access with additional functionalities were identified. Interventions required a variety of data within the EHR, such as patient history, problem list, medication, allergies, and lab results. In addition to EHR access, eight studies allowed patients to share self-documented data, seven offered individualised disease management functions, seven offered educational disease-related information, six supported secure communication, and one offered preventive reminders. Only two studies were at low or unclear risk of bias across domains. Meta-analysis could not be performed, as participants, interventions, and outcomes were too heterogeneous, and most studies presented results based on different adjustment methods or variables. The quality of evidence was rated as low or very low across outcomes. Overall differences between intervention and control groups, if any, were small. The relevance of any small effects remains unclear for most outcomes because in most cases, trial authors did not define a minimal clinically important difference. Overall, results suggest that the effects of EHR access alone and with additional functionalities are mostly uncertain when compared with usual care. Patient knowledge and understanding: very low-quality evidence is available from one study, so we are uncertain about effects of the intervention on patient knowledge about diabetes and blood glucose testing. Patient empowerment: low-quality evidence from three studies suggests that the intervention may have little or no effect on patient empowerment measures. Patient adherence: low-quality evidence from two studies suggests that the intervention may slightly improve adherence to the process of monitoring risk factors and preventive services. Effects on medication adherence are conflicting in two studies; this may or may not improve to a clinically relevant degree. Patient satisfaction with care: low-quality evidence from three studies suggests that the intervention may have little or no effect on patient satisfaction, with conflicting results. Adverse events: two small studies reported on mortality; one of these also reported on serious and other adverse events, but sample sizes were too small for small differences to be detected. Therefore, low-quality evidence suggests that the intervention may have little to no effect on mortality and other adverse events. Health-related quality of life: only very low-quality evidence from one study is available. We are uncertain whether the intervention improves disease-specific quality of life of patients with asthma. Health-related outcomes: low-quality evidence from eight studies suggests that the intervention may have little to no effect on asthma control, glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein or total cholesterol levels, body mass index or weight, or 10-year Framingham risk scores. Low-quality evidence from one study suggests that the composite scores of risk factors for diabetes mellitus may improve slightly with the intervention, but there is uncertainty about effects on ophthalmic medications or intraocular pressure. Psychosocial health outcomes: no study investigated psychosocial health outcomes in a more than anecdotal way. Health resource consumption: low-quality evidence for adult patients in three studies suggests that there may be little to no effect of the intervention on different measures of healthcare use. Patient-provider communication: very low-quality evidence is available from a single small study, and we are uncertain whether the intervention improves communication measures, such as the number of messages sent. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effects of EHR access with additional functionalities in comparison with usual care for the most part are uncertain. Only adherence to the process of monitoring risk factors and providing preventive services as well as a composite score of risk factors for diabetes mellitus may improve slightly with EHR access with additional functionalities. Due to inconsistent terminology in this area, our search may have missed relevant studies. As the overall quality of evidence is very low to low, future research is likely to change these results. Further trials should investigate the impact of EHR access in a broader range of countries and clinical settings, including more patients over a longer period of follow-up, as this may increase the likelihood of detecting effects of the intervention, should these exist. More studies should focus on assessing outcomes such as patient empowerment and behavioural outcomes, rather than concentrating on health-related outcomes alone. Future studies should distinguish between effects of EHR access only and effects of additional functionalities, and investigate the impact of mobile EHR tools. Future studies should include information on usage patterns, and consider the potential for widening health inequalities with implementation of EHR access. A taxonomy for EHR access and additional functionalities should be developed to promote consistency and comparability of outcome measures, and facilitate future reviews by better enabling cross-study comparisons.
Subject(s)
Electronic Health Records , Patient Access to Records , Adult , Asthma/therapy , Bias , Blood Glucose/analysis , Comprehension , Diabetes Mellitus/blood , Diabetes Mellitus/diagnosis , Electronic Health Records/statistics & numerical data , Glaucoma/drug therapy , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Health Services Needs and Demand/statistics & numerical data , Heart Failure/therapy , Humans , Hypertension/therapy , Middle Aged , Patient Access to Records/statistics & numerical data , Patient Compliance , Patient Participation , Patient Satisfaction , Quality of Life , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: State-specific breast density notification legislation requires that women undergoing mammography be informed about breast density, with variation among states. Because mammography facilities are among the main points of contact for women undergoing mammography, research is needed to understand how facilities communicate information on breast density, cancer risk, and supplemental screening to women. METHODS: A cross-sectional, 50-item, mailed survey of 156 American College of Radiology-certified mammography facilities in North Carolina was conducted in 2017 via the Tailored Design Method. Breast density notification practices, supplemental screening services, and patient educational materials were compared by supplemental screening availability via t tests and chi-square tests. RESULTS: All responding facilities (n = 94; 60.3% response rate) notified women of their breast density in the mammography results letter. Breast cancer risk assessments were performed by 36.2% of the facilities, with risk information communicated in the final radiology report for the referring provider to discuss with the woman (79.4%) or in the results letter (58.8%). Supplemental breast cancer screening was offered by 63.8% of the facilities, with use based on multiple factors, including recommendations from the referring physician (63.3%) or reading radiologist (63.3%), breast density (48.3%), other risk factors (48.3%), and patient request (40.0%). Although 75.0% of the facilities offered breast density educational materials, only 36.6% offered educational materials on supplemental screening. CONCLUSIONS: In a state with a breast density notification law, mammography facilities communicate breast density, cancer risk, and supplemental screening information to women through various approaches. When supplemental screening is offered, facilities use multiple decision-making criteria rather than breast density alone.
Subject(s)
Breast Density , Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Patient Access to Records/statistics & numerical data , Patient Education as Topic/methods , Cross-Sectional Studies , Early Detection of Cancer , Female , Humans , Mammography , Patient Access to Records/legislation & jurisprudence , Pilot Projects , Surveys and QuestionnairesSubject(s)
Neoplasms/etiology , Patient Access to Records/statistics & numerical data , Sequence Analysis, DNA/methods , Clinical Decision-Making , Humans , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques , Molecular Targeted Therapy , Neoplasms/diagnosis , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Neoplasms/genetics , Precision Medicine , Standard of CareABSTRACT
Background In the United States, patients have the right to access their protected health information. However, to the knowledge of the authors, no study has evaluated the patient request process and the barriers to patient access of their radiology images. Purpose To assess U.S. hospital compliance with federal regulations and patient ease of access to imaging studies. Materials and Methods In this cross-sectional study conducted from June 6 to December 3, 2018, 80 U.S. hospitals were contacted by telephone to determine their patient request process for imaging studies. A scripted interview was used to simulate the patient experience in requesting imaging studies. Hospitals were compared in terms of formats of release (compact disc [CD] via pick up, CD via mail, e-mail, online patient portal, or other online access), departments from which cine files can be requested, fees, and processing times. Results All 80 hospitals stated that they could provide imaging studies on CDs. Only six (8%) hospitals provided imaging studies via e-mail and three (4%) via an online patient portal. Requests for cine files were fulfilled by a department separate from diagnostic radiology in 47 of 80 (59%) hospitals. Patient charges ranged from $0 to $75 for a single CD, no charge to $6 via e-mail, and no charge via an online patient portal. Fifty-nine (74%) hospitals stated that they could release copies within 24 hours, 10 (13%) within 2-5 days, eight (10%) within 5-10 days, and three (4%) within 10-30 days from request date. Imaging studies from outside of the diagnostic radiology department may need to be requested through the departments that performed the study. Conclusion This study demonstrated that although fees and processing times are compliant with federal regulations, patient access to imaging studies is limited primarily to compact disc format. The request process is also complicated for patients because of dispersion of imaging studies across departments. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article.
Subject(s)
Diagnostic Imaging/methods , Diagnostic Imaging/statistics & numerical data , Hospitals/statistics & numerical data , Patient Access to Records/statistics & numerical data , Radiology/methods , Cross-Sectional Studies , Diagnostic Imaging/economics , Humans , Patient Access to Records/economics , Radiology/economics , United StatesABSTRACT
Bipolar disorder is among the top 10 causes of disability worldwide. It is managed through a combination of medical and psychotherapeutic interventions, but finding an effective treatment is often a long process of trial-and-error, that medical professionals and people diagnosed with this condition engage upon. This article investigates how people diagnosed with bipolar disorder enact lay expertise about the treatment of this condition online. Using De Certeau's (1988) theory of everyday practices, three tactics are identified-complexity, uncertainty, and individualization-through which people diagnosed creatively adapt medical knowledge on bipolar disorder, to render their personal experiences and views on treatment more authoritative. It is suggested that through their technological features, which allow for the accumulation and refinement of the insights contributors share, blogs may function as digital repositories of patient experiences and may thus help facilitate collective processes of knowledge production. Online data were collected from two blogs, which were selected using the Google index as relevance indicator, and were analyzed through computer-mediated discourse analysis.
Subject(s)
Bipolar Disorder/therapy , Information Dissemination/methods , Internet/statistics & numerical data , Medical Informatics/statistics & numerical data , Patient Participation/statistics & numerical data , Social Media/statistics & numerical data , Bipolar Disorder/diagnosis , Female , Humans , Male , Patient Access to Records/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
Purpose To determine an optimal embargo period preceding release of radiologic test results to an online patient portal. Materials and Methods This prospective discrete choice conjoint survey with modified orthogonal design was administered to patients by trained interviewers at four outpatient sites and two institutions from December 2016 to February 2018. Three preferences for receiving imaging results associated with a possible or known cancer diagnosis were evaluated: delay in receipt of results (1, 3, or 14 days), method of receipt (online portal, physician's office, or phone), and condition of receipt (before, at the same time as, or after health care provider). Preferences (hereafter, referred to as utilities) were derived from parameter estimates (ß) of multinomial regression stratified according to study participant and choice set. Results Among 464 screened participants, the response and completion rates were 90.5% (420 of 464) and 99.5% (418 of 420), respectively. Participants preferred faster receipt of results (P < .001) from their physician (P < .001) over the telephone (P < .001). Each day of delay decreased preference by 13 percentage points. Participants preferred immediate receipt of results through an online portal (utility, -.57) if made to wait more than 6 days to get results in the office and more than 11 days to get results by telephone. Compared with receiving results in their physician's office on day 7 (utility, -.60), participants preferred immediate release through the online portal without physician involvement if followed by a telephone call within 6 days (utility, -0.49) or an office visit within 2 days (utility, -.53). Older participants preferred physician-directed communication (P < .001). Conclusion The optimal embargo period preceding release of results through an online portal depends on the timing of traditional telephone- and office-based styles of communication. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Arenson et al in this issue.
Subject(s)
Diagnostic Imaging , Electronic Health Records , Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Patient Access to Records , Patient Portals , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Child , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Access to Records/psychology , Patient Access to Records/statistics & numerical data , Patient Preference/psychology , Patient Preference/statistics & numerical data , Surveys and Questionnaires , Young AdultABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: We describe online portal account adoption and feature access among subgroups of patients who traditionally have been disadvantaged or represent those with high healthcare needs. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of insured primary care patients 18 years and older (N = 20,282) receiving care from an integrated health system. METHODS: Using data from an electronic health record repository, portal adoption was defined by 1 or more online sessions. Feature access (ie, messaging, appointment management, visit/admission summaries, and medical record access and management) was defined by user-initiated "clicks." Multivariable regression methods were used to identify patient factors associated with portal adoption and feature access among adopters. RESULTS: One-third of patients were portal adopters, with African Americans (odds ratio [OR], 0.50; 95% CI, 0.46-0.56), Hispanics (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.84), those 70 years and older (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.44-0.52), and those preferring a language other than English (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.31-0.59) less likely to be adopters. On the other hand, the likelihood of portal adoption increased with a higher number of comorbidities (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.07). Among adopters, record access and management features (95.9%) were accessed most commonly. The majority of adopters also accessed appointment management (76.6%) and messaging (59.1%) features. Similar race and age disparities were found in feature access among adopters. CONCLUSIONS: The diversity of portal features accessed may bode well for the ability of portals to engage some patients, but without purposeful intervention, reliance on portals alone for patient engagement may exacerbate known social disparities-even among those with an activated portal account.
Subject(s)
Patient Portals/statistics & numerical data , Primary Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Racial Groups/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Appointments and Schedules , Comorbidity , Electronic Health Records/statistics & numerical data , Electronic Mail/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Male , Michigan , Middle Aged , Patient Access to Records/statistics & numerical data , Regression Analysis , Retrospective Studies , Sex FactorsABSTRACT
Importance: Although federal law has long promoted patients' access to their protected health information, this access remains limited. Previous studies have demonstrated some issues in requesting release of medical records, but, to date, there has been no comprehensive review of the challenges that exist in all aspects of the request process. Objective: To evaluate the current state of medical records request processes of US hospitals in terms of compliance with federal and state regulations and ease of patient access. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study of medical records request processes was conducted between August 1 and December 7, 2017, in 83 top-ranked US hospitals with independent medical records request processes and medical records departments reachable by telephone. Hospitals were ranked as the top 20 hospitals for each of the 16 adult specialties in the 2016-2017 US News & World Report Best Hospitals National Rankings. Exposures: Scripted interview with medical records departments in a single-blind, simulated patient experience. Main Outcomes and Measures: Requestable information (entire medical record, laboratory test results, medical history and results of physical examination, discharge summaries, consultation reports, physician orders, and other), formats of release (pick up in person, mail, fax, email, CD, and online patient portal), costs, and request processing times, identified on medical records release authorization forms and through telephone calls with medical records departments. Results: Among the 83 top-ranked US hospitals representing 29 states, there was discordance between information provided on authorization forms and that obtained from the simulated patient telephone calls in terms of requestable information, formats of release, and costs. On the forms, as few as 9 hospitals (11%) provided the option of selecting 1 of the categories of information and only 44 hospitals (53%) provided patients the option to acquire the entire medical record. On telephone calls, all 83 hospitals stated that they were able to release entire medical records to patients. There were discrepancies in information given in telephone calls vs on the forms between the formats hospitals stated that they could use to release information (69 [83%] vs 40 [48%] for pick up in person, 20 [24%] vs 14 [17%] for fax, 39 [47%] vs 27 [33%] for email, 55 [66%] vs 35 [42%] for CD, and 21 [25%] vs 33 [40%] for online patient portals), additionally demonstrating noncompliance with federal regulations in refusing to provide records in the format requested by the patient. There were 48 hospitals that had costs of release (as much as $541.50 for a 200-page record) above the federal recommendation of $6.50 for electronically maintained records. At least 6 of the hospitals (7%) were noncompliant with state requirements for processing times. Conclusions and Relevance: The study revealed that there are discrepancies in the information provided to patients regarding the medical records release processes and noncompliance with federal and state regulations and recommendations. Policies focused on improving patient access may require stricter enforcement to ensure more transparent and less burdensome medical records request processes for patients.
Subject(s)
Guideline Adherence , Medical Records Department, Hospital , Medical Records/legislation & jurisprudence , Patient Access to Records , Cross-Sectional Studies , Guideline Adherence/legislation & jurisprudence , Guideline Adherence/standards , Guideline Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Medical Records Department, Hospital/legislation & jurisprudence , Medical Records Department, Hospital/standards , Medical Records Department, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Patient Access to Records/legislation & jurisprudence , Patient Access to Records/standards , Patient Access to Records/statistics & numerical data , Quality Assurance, Health Care , United StatesABSTRACT
This paper focuses on the adoption of electronic patient portals aimed at providing consumers with access to their own health records along with added functions aimed to improving convenience and access to care. A variety of Canadian patient portal implementations were analysed with evidence supplemented from international examples. Measures of adoption focused on active users and frequency of access. New portal implementations can achieve adoption at a rate of 5-10% of the overall population per year with larger, jurisdiction-wide deployments growing at a slower rate than smaller, more targeted deployments.
Subject(s)
Electronic Health Records/statistics & numerical data , Patient Access to Records/statistics & numerical data , Patient Portals/statistics & numerical data , Canada , Consumer Health Information , Electronic Health Records/organization & administration , Humans , TelemedicineABSTRACT
The use of smart mobile devices has been getting increasingly popular. The focus of this study is an attempt to explore the development of mobile medical App by medical centers and regional hospitals of Taiwan and the function of the App for comparison. The results show indicated that many hospitals developed Apps for the public for mobile medical service, of which 26 medical centers (100%) and 72 regional hospitals (84.7%) availed appointment making service via Apps. The result indicated variance at significant level (p < 0.01). There are 23 medical centers (88.5%) and 74 regional hospitals (87.1%) availed Apps for checking service progress. The result indicated insignificant variance level (p > 0.01). We can see that mobile medical service is gradually emerging as a vital issue. Yet, this is a new domain in medical service. With the mushrooming of medical applications in smart mobile devices, the medical service system is expected to be installed in these devices to enhance interactive mode of operation and inquiry services, such as medication and inquiries into physical examination results. By then, people can learn the status of their health with this system.
Subject(s)
Cloud Computing/statistics & numerical data , Consumer Health Information/statistics & numerical data , Electronic Health Records/statistics & numerical data , Mobile Applications/statistics & numerical data , Patient Portals/statistics & numerical data , Telemedicine/statistics & numerical data , Appointments and Schedules , Patient Access to Records/statistics & numerical data , Smartphone/statistics & numerical data , Taiwan , Utilization ReviewABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to ascertain if patients will accept an electronic patient record system that temporarily conceals their private information. We interviewed 11 outpatients at a core hospital in Shizuoka prefecture of Japan. Most patients agree with our idea using temporary mosaic on the screen to protect their privacy.
Subject(s)
Confidentiality , Electronic Health Records/statistics & numerical data , Health Records, Personal , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Patient Access to Records/statistics & numerical data , User-Computer Interface , Attitude to Computers , Computer Security/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Japan , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/psychology , Patient Access to Records/psychologyABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The study evaluates how providers give patient education materials and identifies improvements to comply with Meaningful Use (MU) requirements. METHODS: Thirty-eight patient-provider interactions in two health care outpatient clinics were observed. RESULTS: Providers do not uniformly know MU patient education requirements. Providers have individual preferences and find gaps in what is available. Accessing and documenting patient education varies among providers. Embedded electronic health record (EHR) materials, while available, have technical access barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Providers' EHR skills and knowledge levels contribute to non-standardized patient education delivery.
Subject(s)
Electronic Health Records/statistics & numerical data , Meaningful Use/organization & administration , Patient Access to Records/statistics & numerical data , Patient Education as Topic/organization & administration , Patient Satisfaction/statistics & numerical data , Counseling/methods , Health Information Exchange , Humans , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , UtahABSTRACT
Patients' increasing demands for medical information, the digitization of health records and the fast spread of Internet access form a basis of introducing new eHealth services. An international trend is to provide access for patients to health information of various kind. In Sweden, access by patients to their proper electronic health record (EHR) has been provided in a pilot county since November 2012. This eHealth service is controversial and criticism has arised from the clinical professions, mainly physicians. Two web surveys were conducted to discover whether the opinions of healthcare professionals differ; between staff that have had experience with patients accessing their own EHR and those who have no such expericence. Experienced nurses found the EHR more important for the patients and a better reform, compared to unexperienced nurses in the rest of the country. Similarly, physicians with their own experience had a more positive attitude compared to non-experienced physicians. The conclusion of this study is that healthcare professionals must be involved in the implementation of public eHealth services such as EHRs and that real experiences of the professionals should be better disseminated to their inexperienced peers.
Subject(s)
Attitude of Health Personnel , Electronic Health Records/statistics & numerical data , Nurses/statistics & numerical data , Online Systems , Patient Access to Records/statistics & numerical data , Physicians/statistics & numerical data , Access to Information , Adult , Aged , Humans , Middle Aged , Surveys and Questionnaires , SwedenABSTRACT
Patient-facing technologies are increasingly utilized for direct patient data entry for potential incorporation into the electronic health record. We analyzed patient-entered data during implementation of a patient-facing data entry technology using an online patient portal and clinic-based tablet computers at a University-based tertiary medical center clinic, including entries for past medical history, past surgical history, and social history. Entries were assessed for granularity, clinical accuracy, and the addition of novel information into the record. We found that over half of patient-generated diagnoses were duplicates of lesser or equal granularity compared to previous provider-entered diagnoses. Approximately one fifth of patient-generated diagnoses were found to meet the criteria for new, meaningful additions to the medical record. Our findings demonstrate that while patient-generated data provides important additional information, it may also present challenges including generating inaccurate or less granular information.
Subject(s)
Data Accuracy , Electronic Health Records/classification , Electronic Health Records/statistics & numerical data , Meaningful Use/statistics & numerical data , Medical History Taking/methods , Patient Participation/statistics & numerical data , Information Storage and Retrieval/classification , Information Storage and Retrieval/methods , Minnesota , Patient Access to Records/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
Sweden has had significant progress with the the introduction of electronic health records. A pilot county deployed in an eHealth service in 2012, giving access to health records for all of its patients. This eHealth service is, however, a controversial issue. Two surveys were conducted to discover whether healthcare professionals' opinions differ between professionals, and between staff who have had experience with patients using eHealth records and those, to date, who have had none. Experienced nurses found this eHealth service more important for the patients compared to unexperienced nurses outside the pilot county, as well as both semi-experienced physicians.
Subject(s)
Attitude of Health Personnel , Electronic Health Records/statistics & numerical data , Health Priorities/statistics & numerical data , Nurses/statistics & numerical data , Patient Access to Records/statistics & numerical data , Physicians/statistics & numerical data , Health Services Accessibility/statistics & numerical data , Needs Assessment , SwedenABSTRACT
People having access to their medical records could have a transformative improvement effect on healthcare delivery and use. Our research aimed to explore the concerns and attitudes of giving people electronic access to their medical records through patient portals. We conducted 28 semi-structured interviews with 30 people, asking questions about portal design, organisational implications and governance. We report the findings of the governance considerations raised during the interviews. These revealed that (1) there is uncertainty about the possible design and extent of giving people access to their medical records to view/use, (2) existing policies about patient authentication, proxy, and privacy require modification, and (3) existing governance structures and functions require further examination and adjustment. Future research should include more input from patients and health informaticians.
Subject(s)
Attitude to Computers , Confidentiality , Electronic Health Records/statistics & numerical data , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Patient Access to Records/statistics & numerical data , Patient Participation/statistics & numerical data , Computer Security/statistics & numerical data , New ZealandABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To document disparities in registration and use of an online patient portal among older adults. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 534 older adults were linked with information from the Northwestern Medicine Electronic Data Warehouse on patient portal registration and use of functions (secure messaging, prescription reauthorizations, checking test results, and monitoring vital statistics). Age, gender, race, education, self-reported chronic conditions, and the Newest Vital Sign health literacy measure were available from cohort data. RESULTS: Most patients (93.4%) had a patient portal access code generated for them, and among these 57.5% registered their accounts. In multivariable analyses, White patients (P < .001) and college graduates were more likely to have registered their patient portal (P = .015). Patients with marginal (P = .034) or adequate (P < .001) health literacy were also more likely to have registered their patient portal. Among those registering their accounts, most had messaged their physician (90%), checked a test result (96%), and ordered a reauthorization (55%), but few monitored their vital statistics (11%). Adequate health literacy patients were more likely to have used the messaging function (P = .003) and White patients were more likely to have accessed test results (P = .004). Higher education was consistently associated with prescription reauthorization requests (all P < .05). DISCUSSION: Among older American adults, there are stark health literacy, educational, and racial disparities in the registration, and subsequent use of an online patient portal. These population sub-group differences may exacerbate existing health disparities. CONCLUSIONS: If patient portals are implemented, intervention strategies are needed to monitor and reduce disparities in their use.
Subject(s)
Electronic Health Records/statistics & numerical data , Internet/statistics & numerical data , Age Factors , Aged , Chi-Square Distribution , Educational Status , Electronic Prescribing , Female , Health Literacy , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Access to Records/statistics & numerical data , Racial Groups , United StatesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Although the number of blood tests ordered in primary care continues to increase, efficient systems for the communication of blood test results to patients are lacking. This is a concern in terms of both patient safety and patient satisfaction. AIM: To gain an understanding of patient perspectives on organisational and technological aspects of current and prospective systems for communicating laboratory test results in primary care, and the influences that impact patients' preferred methods for receiving results. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study using patient focus groups in four primary care practices in Birmingham, UK. METHOD: The primary care practices were purposively selected to ensure they varied in size, socioeconomic environment, and the default pathways they used to communicate test results. A total of 26 patients from the four practices who had had a recent blood test were recruited. Over a 6 month period in 2011, six, 1-hour focus groups were conducted at the four practices involved in the study. RESULTS: Patients expressed a preference for receiving results from the ordering GP or a clinically qualified member of staff. Suggestions for refining current systems included improved access to phlebotomy appointments, better management of patient telephone calls, and a clear, accessible protocol for the communication of results. CONCLUSION: Despite the testing and result communication process being a core activity in primary care, it was found that practices could improve their service in a number of areas. Patients described frequent delays and inconsistency in both the level of information and the method of communication, as well as dissatisfaction with non-clinical staff relaying results. Patient preferences for result communication based on their experience of current systems have produced practical suggestions to improve processes.