Evaluation of the Patient Request Process for Radiology Imaging in U.S. Hospitals.

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.

Electronic patient portals: evidence on health outcomes, satisfaction, efficiency, and attitudes: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patient portals tied to provider electronic health record (EHR) systems are increasingly popular. PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature reporting the effect of patient portals on clinical care. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Web of Science searches from 1 January 1990 to 24 January 2013. STUDY SELECTION: Hypothesis-testing or quantitative studies of patient portals tethered to a provider EHR that addressed patient outcomes, satisfaction, adherence, efficiency, utilization, attitudes, and patient characteristics, as well as qualitative studies of barriers or facilitators, were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data and addressed discrepancies through consensus discussion. DATA SYNTHESIS: From 6508 titles, 14 randomized, controlled trials; 21 observational, hypothesis-testing studies; 5 quantitative, descriptive studies; and 6 qualitative studies were included. Evidence is mixed about the effect of portals on patient outcomes and satisfaction, although they may be more effective when used with case management. The effect of portals on utilization and efficiency is unclear, although patient race and ethnicity, education level or literacy, and degree of comorbid conditions may influence use. LIMITATION: Limited data for most outcomes and an absence of reporting on organizational and provider context and implementation processes. CONCLUSION: Evidence that patient portals improve health outcomes, cost, or utilization is insufficient. Patient attitudes are generally positive, but more widespread use may require efforts to overcome racial, ethnic, and literacy barriers. Portals represent a new technology with benefits that are still unclear. Better understanding requires studies that include details about context, implementation factors, and cost.

A comparison of English and French approaches to providing patients access to Summary Care Records: scope, consent, cost.

Online access to records is part of the process of empowering patients. National health services in both France and England have introduced systems to provide online access to summary health data. The English system was called the "Summary Care Record (SCR)," made accessible to patients through "HealthSpace". The French system Dossier Médical Personnel (DMP) is a patient controlled record clinicians enter data into. The objective was to compare the programmes and lessons from the introduction of patient access. We carried out a literature review. The English system has been progressively de-scoped, with HealthSpace due to close in 2013, only 0.01% of the population signing up for "advanced accounts". The French system slowly grows as more documents are added; though only 0.31% of the population have opened a DMP. The English SCR has an opt-out consent model, whereas the French DMP is patient controlled opt-in consent model. The SCR sits within an NHS intranet while the DMP sits on the Internet. Both systems have costs of around 200 million Euro. Providing patients online access to their medical records is potentially empowering. However, the English HealthSpace and SCR have failed to deliver and are due to be withdrawn as methods of providing patients online access. The French system is still in operation but much criticized for its high costs and low uptake. The design of these systems does not appear to have met patients' needs or been readily integrated into physicians workflow.

Inviting patients to read their doctors' notes: patients and doctors look ahead: patient and physician surveys.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about what primary care physicians (PCPs) and patients would expect if patients were invited to read their doctors' office notes. OBJECTIVE: To explore attitudes toward potential benefits or harms if PCPs offered patients ready access to visit notes. DESIGN: The PCPs and patients completed surveys before joining a voluntary program that provided electronic links to doctors' notes. SETTING: Primary care practices in 3 U.S. states. PARTICIPANTS: Participating and nonparticipating PCPs and adult patients at primary care practices in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Washington. MEASUREMENTS: Doctors' and patients' attitudes toward and expectations of open visit notes, their ideas about the potential benefits and risks, and demographic characteristics. RESULTS: 110 of 114 participating PCPs (96%), 63 of 140 nonparticipating PCPs (45%), and 37 856 of 90 203 patients (42%) completed surveys. Overall, 69% to 81% of participating PCPs across the 3 sites and 92% to 97% of patients thought open visit notes were a good idea, compared with 16% to 33% of nonparticipating PCPs. Similarly, participating PCPs and patients generally agreed with statements about potential benefits of open visit notes, whereas nonparticipating PCPs were less likely to agree. Among participating PCPs, 74% to 92% anticipated improved communication and patient education, in contrast to 45% to 67% of nonparticipating PCPs. More than one half of participating PCPs (50% to 58%) and most nonparticipating PCPs (88% to 92%) expected that open visit notes would result in greater worry among patients; far fewer patients concurred (12% to 16%). Thirty-six percent to 50% of participating PCPs and 83% to 84% of nonparticipating PCPs anticipated more patient questions between visits. Few PCPs (0% to 33%) anticipated increased risk for lawsuits. Patient enthusiasm extended across age, education, and health status, and 22% anticipated sharing visit notes with others, including other doctors. LIMITATIONS: Access to electronic patient portals is not widespread, and participation was limited to patients using such portals. Response rates were higher among participating PCPs than nonparticipating PCPs; many participating PCPs had small patient panels. CONCLUSION: Among PCPs, opinions about open visit notes varied widely in terms of predicting the effect on their practices and benefits for patients. In contrast, patients expressed considerable enthusiasm and few fears, anticipating both improved understanding and more involvement in care. Sharing visit notes has broad implications for quality of care, privacy, and shared accountability. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Pioneer Portfolio, Drane Family Fund, and Koplow Charitable Foundation.

Patients' access to their health information: a meaningful-use mandate.

This department highlights topics in nursing outcomes, research, and evidence-based practice relevant to nurse administrators. In this article, the authors describe patient access to personal health information as it relates to the meaningful-use requirement, technologies that have been used to enhance patient engagement, and the nursing leadership implications.

Using frames to influence consumer willingness to pay for the patient health record: a randomized experiment.

The American College of Medical Informatics rated the lack of willingness to pay for the patient health record (PHR) as the biggest obstacles to its rapid diffusion. Extending research propositions from the decision sciences and political communication, this study tests the influence of different types of emphasis frames on increasing consumer willingness to pay for the PHR. Using a randomized experiment embedded within a probability survey, the effects of 3 different types of emphasis frames (individual-focused, collective-focused, and joint), along with a no-frames control, are tested on a sample of early and later technology adopters. The results indicate a significant relationship between the type of frame and the type of adopter. Early adopters were more susceptible to individual-focused frames that made causal attributions at the individual level, whereas later adopters were significantly influenced by collective-focused frames that made causal attributions at the societal level. Interestingly, the framing effect continued and significantly influenced both early and later adopters' willingness to pay for the PHR. The findings demonstrate the need to carefully communicate the value of a technology to adopters and suggest the possibility of using frames to spur the diffusion of PHRs.

Digital Recording and Documentation of Endoscopic Procedures: Do Patients and Doctors Think Alike?

Aims and Methods. Conducting a survey study of a large number of patients and gastroenterologists aimed at identifying relevant predictors of interest in digital recording and documentation (DRD) of endoscopic procedures. Outpatients presenting to the endoscopy unit at our institution for an endoscopy examination were anonymously surveyed, regarding their views and opinions of a possible recording of the procedure. A parallel survey for gastroenterologists was conducted. Results. 417 patients and 62 gastroenterologists participated in two parallel surveys regarding DRD of endoscopic procedures. 66.4% of the patients expressed interest in digital documentation of their endoscopic procedure, with 90.5% of them requesting a copy. 43.6% of the physicians supported digital recording while 27.4% opposed it, with 48.4% opposing to making a copy of the recording available to the patient. No sociodemographic or background factors predicted patient's interest in DRD. 66% of the physicians reported having recording facilities in their institutions, but only 43.6% of them stated performing recording. Having institutional guidelines for DRD was found to be the only significant predictor for routine recording. Conclusions. Our study exposes patients' positive views of digital recording and documentation of endoscopic procedures. In contrast, physicians appear to be much more reluctant towards DRD and are centrally motivated by legal concerns when opposing DRD, as well as when supporting it.

Socioeconomic disparities in adoption of personal health records over time.

OBJECTIVES: Since 2009, federal policies have incentivized medical organizations to provide medical record access to patients. We sought to track personal health record (PHR) adoption and differences by sociodemographic group over time. STUDY DESIGN: Random-digit-dial survey conducted for 4 consecutive years in New York state. METHODS: The Empire State Poll is a random digit-dial survey conducted every year in New York state, with an annual sample size of 800 individuals, weighted to create a representative state sample. We analyzed 4 consecutive years of poll data to examine trends. RESULTS: The proportion of New Yorkers using PHRs rose sharply, from 11% in 2012 to 27% in 2015. By 2015, there were no significant differences in PHR use between blacks and other races, but Hispanics and low-income respondents were less likely to use PHRs. CONCLUSIONS: During a 4-year period in which federal policies incentivized medical organizations to give medical record access to patients through PHRs and electronic portals, rates of PHR use increased rapidly in all sociodemographic groups. However, a digital divide remains evident, linked to Hispanic ethnicity and lower income.

A Global Analysis of Approaches to Sharing Clinical Data with Patients.

Engaging patients in their care has become a topic of increasing importance, and enabling patients to have access to their clinical data is a key aspect of such engagement. To investigate on an international scale the current state of approaches for providing patients with access to their own clinical information, individuals from 16 countries, across six continents, participated in cross-sectional semi-structured interviews. Interview questions focused on social and cultural influences that affected patient engagement activities, government support for current and planned initiatives, data ownership models, and technical issues. Substantive initiatives for providing information to patients in the majority of countries interviewed are present; however, these initiatives were diverse in nature and stage of implementation. Efforts to improve patient access to data are active on a global-scale. There are many open questions about best practices and much can be learned by adopting an international perspective to guide future implementation efforts.

HIPAA copy charges for medical records.

The HIPAA privacy rule allows providers to charge for providing copies of medical records to patients and their representatives. Providers need to know which activities in the retrieval and handling of such information can be included in the medical record copy charges. State-mandated fees for copies vary and may be preempted by HIPAA, requiring careful review by providers. Healthcare organizations that use a copy service may need to determine whether bringing the activity in house would be more cost-effective under HIPAA.

Copy fees and patients' rights to obtain a copy of their medical records: from law to reality.

Patients have a legal right under HIPAA to a copy of their medical records. Personal life-long medical records rely on patients' ability to exercise this right inexpensively and in a timely manner. We surveyed 73 hospitals across the US, with a geographic concentration around Boston, to determine their policies about fees for copying medical records and the expected time it takes to fulfill such requests. Fees range very widely, from $2-55 for short records of 15 pages to $15-585 for long ones of 500 pages. Times also range widely, from 1-30 days (or longer for off-site records). A few institutions provide records for free and even fewer make them accessible on-line. We argue that electronic records will help solve the problem of giving patients access to their own records, will do so inexpensively and in a format more likely to be useful than paper.