Dataset Information

Comparing electronic health record portals to obtain patient-entered family health history in primary care.

ABSTRACT: There is growing interest in developing systems to overcome barriers for acquiring and interpreting family health histories in primary care.To examine the capacity of three different electronic portals to collect family history from patients and deposit valid data in an electronic health record (EHR).Pilot trial.Patients were enrolled from four primary care practices and were asked to collect family health history before a physical exam using either telephone-based interactive voice response (IVR) technology, a secure Internet portal, or a waiting room laptop computer, with portal assigned by practice. Intervention practices were compared to a "usual care" practice, where there was no standard workflow to document family history (663 participants in the three intervention arms were compared to 296 participants from the control practice).New documentation of any family history in a coded EHR field within 30 days of the visit. Secondary outcomes included participation rates and validity.Demographics varied by clinic. Documentation of new family history data was significantly higher, but modest, in each of the three intervention clinics (7.5 % for IVR clinic, 20.3 % for laptop clinic, and 23.1 % for patient portal clinic) versus the control clinic (1.7 %). Patient-entered data on common conditions in first degree relatives was confirmed as valid by a genetic counselor for the majority of cases (ranging from 64 to 82 % in the different arms).Within primary care practices, valid patient entered family health history data can be obtained electronically at higher rates than a standard of care that depends on provider-entered data. Further research is needed to determine how best to match different portals to individual patient preference, how the tools can best be integrated with provider workflow, and to assess how they impact the use of screening and prevention.

SUBMITTER: Murray MF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3832728 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparing electronic health record portals to obtain patient-entered family health history in primary care.

Murray Michael F MF Giovanni Monica A MA Klinger Elissa E George Elise E Marinacci Lucas L Getty George G Brawarsky Phyllis P Rocha Beatriz B Orav E John EJ Bates David W DW Haas Jennifer S JS

Journal of general internal medicine 20130416 12

<h4>Background</h4>There is growing interest in developing systems to overcome barriers for acquiring and interpreting family health histories in primary care.<h4>Objective</h4>To examine the capacity of three different electronic portals to collect family history from patients and deposit valid data in an electronic health record (EHR).<h4>Design</h4>Pilot trial.<h4>Participants, intervention</h4>Patients were enrolled from four primary care practices and were asked to collect family health his ...[more]

PMID: 23588670

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundElectronic health record (EHR) patient portals are designed to provide medical health records to patients. Using an EHR portal is expected to contribute to positive health outcomes and facilitate patient-provider communication.ObjectiveOur objective was to examine how portal users report using their portals and the factors associated with obtaining health information from the internet. We also examined the desired portal features, factors impacting users' trust in portals, and barriers to using portals.MethodsAn internet-based survey study was conducted using Amazon Mechanical Turk. All the participants were adults in the United States who used patient portals. The survey included questions about how the participants used their portals, what factors acted as barriers to using their portals, and how they used and how much they trusted other web-based health information sources as well as their portals. A logistic regression model was used to examine the factors influencing the participants' trust in their portals. Additionally, the desired features and design characteristics were identified to support the design of future portals.ResultsA total of 394 participants completed the survey. Most of the participants were less than 35 years old (212/394, 53.8%), with 36.3% (143/394) aged between 35 and 55 years, and 9.9% (39/394) aged above 55 years. Women accounted for 48.5% (191/394) of the survey participants. More than 78% (307/394) of the participants reported using portals at least monthly. The most common portal features used were viewing lab results, making appointments, and paying bills. Participants reported some barriers to portal use including data security and limited access to the internet. The results of a logistic regression model used to predict the trust in their portals suggest that those comfortable using their portals (odds ratio [OR] 7.97, 95% CI 1.11-57.32) thought that their portals were easy to use (OR 7.4, 95% CI 1.12-48.84), and frequent internet users (OR 43.72, 95% CI 1.83-1046.43) were more likely to trust their portals. Participants reporting that the portals were important in managing their health (OR 28.13, 95% CI 5.31-148.85) and that their portals were a valuable part of their health care (OR 6.75, 95% CI 1.51-30.11) were also more likely to trust their portals.ConclusionsThere are several factors that impact the trust of EHR patient portal users in their portals. Designing easily usable portals and considering these factors may be the most effective approach to improving trust in patient portals. The desired features and usability of portals are critical factors that contribute to users' trust in EHR portals.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Acceptance of Electronic patient portal (EPP) is instrumental for its success. Studies on users' acceptance in the Middle East region are scarce. This study aims to use the TAM as a framework to quantitatively describe potential users, diabetic and chronic high blood pressure patients and their providers, intention to use and factors influencing the intention to use EPP at AUBMC-FMC We concurrently test the internal construct validity and the reliability of the TAM. METHODS:A cross-sectional survey design and the vignette approach were used. For validation, we needed a minimum of 180 patients; all 35 attending physicians and 11 registered nurses were targeted. We used descriptive statistics to calculate the intention to use EPP and its determinants based on the TAM constructs. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) were employed to estimate significant path coefficients for patients only as the sample size of providers was too small. RESULTS:We had 199 patients, half intended to use EPP; 73% of providers (N = 17) intended to use EPP. Perceived ease of use and privacy concerns were significantly higher among providers than patients (Mean (M) = 0.77 vs M = 0.42 (CI: - 0.623; - 0.081)) and (M = 3.67 vs M = 2.13, CI: - 2.16; - 0.91) respectively; other constructs were not significantly different. Reliability of TAM revealed a Cronbach Alpha of α=.91. EFA showed that three components explained 73.48% of the variance: Behavioral Intention of Use (14.9%), Perceived Ease of Use (50.74%), Perceived Usefulness (7.84%). SEM found that perceived ease of use increased perceived usefulness (standardized regression weight = 0.49); perceived usefulness (0.51) had more predictive value than perceived ease of use (0.27) to explain the behavioral intention of use of the EPP. CONCLUSIONS:We found that providers valued the usefulness of EPP and were mostly intending to use it. This finding has yet to be tested in future studies testing actual use as intention and actual use may not be concordant. The intention to use among patients was lower than those reported in developed countries. We identified two factors that we need to address to increase use, namely perceived ease and usefulness, and proposed practical implications to address them; future research directions were also discussed.

Project description:Rationale & objectiveElectronic health record portals are increasingly emphasized in chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, associations of portal use with clinical and patient-centered outcomes remain unknown.Study designCross-sectional survey (April 2015 to March 2018).Setting & participantsNondialysis patients with CKD from nephrology clinics within 1 academic medical center.ExposuresPatient demographics (age, sex, race, ethnicity, education, and income), kidney function.OutcomesAssociation between portal use as an outcome and exposures. Additionally, associations of portal use and patient demographics with 4 patient-centered outcomes (CKD-specific knowledge, stress, and 2 self-ratings of health).Analytic approachLogistic regression to examine associations between patient portal use, demographics, and kidney function. Linear regression to examine associations between portal use and patient-centered outcomes.ResultsOf 245 participants, mean age was 60 ± 17 (SD) years, 182 (77%) were White, 121 (49%) were women, 230 (96%) had a high school education or higher, and 96 (45%) had <$50,000 annual income. Examining portal use, 159 (65%) used the portal as follows: checking laboratory test results, 157 (99%); managing appointments, 133 (84%); messaging providers, 131 (82%); viewing medical history, 127 (80%); reviewing educational resources, 113 (71%); and renewing prescriptions, 98 (62%). African Americans (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.16-0.72 vs White patients), patients with less formal education (OR, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.01-0.36), and those with lower income (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.13-0.60; and OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.12-0.54 comparing income < $25,000 and $25,000-$50,000, respectively, with ≥$50,000) had lower odds of using the portal. In adjusted analysis, only lower income predicted lower portal use. Examining patient-centered outcomes in univariable analysis, portal users had higher knowledge (β = 4.89; P = 0.02), higher ratings of current health (β = 0.28; P = 0.03), and lower CKD-related stress (β = -0.18; P = 0.05). In adjusted analysis, only patient demographics and/or kidney function remained independent predictors of patient-centered outcomes.LimitationsCross-sectional study design, cannot determine causality.ConclusionsInterventions are needed to ensure that all patients have access to portals to mitigate disparities in care.

Project description:ObjectiveA recent Institute of Medicine report called for attention to safety issues related to electronic health records (EHRs). We analyzed EHR-related safety concerns reported within a large, integrated healthcare system.MethodsThe Informatics Patient Safety Office of the Veterans Health Administration (VA) maintains a non-punitive, voluntary reporting system to collect and investigate EHR-related safety concerns (ie, adverse events, potential events, and near misses). We analyzed completed investigations using an eight-dimension sociotechnical conceptual model that accounted for both technical and non-technical dimensions of safety. Using the framework analysis approach to qualitative data, we identified emergent and recurring safety concerns common to multiple reports.ResultsWe extracted 100 consecutive, unique, closed investigations between August 2009 and May 2013 from 344 reported incidents. Seventy-four involved unsafe technology and 25 involved unsafe use of technology. A majority (70%) involved two or more model dimensions. Most often, non-technical dimensions such as workflow, policies, and personnel interacted in a complex fashion with technical dimensions such as software/hardware, content, and user interface to produce safety concerns. Most (94%) safety concerns related to either unmet data-display needs in the EHR (ie, displayed information available to the end user failed to reduce uncertainty or led to increased potential for patient harm), software upgrades or modifications, data transmission between components of the EHR, or 'hidden dependencies' within the EHR.DiscussionEHR-related safety concerns involving both unsafe technology and unsafe use of technology persist long after 'go-live' and despite the sophisticated EHR infrastructure represented in our data source. Currently, few healthcare institutions have reporting and analysis capabilities similar to the VA.ConclusionsBecause EHR-related safety concerns have complex sociotechnical origins, institutions with long-standing as well as recent EHR implementations should build a robust infrastructure to monitor and learn from them.

Dataset Information

Comparing electronic health record portals to obtain patient-entered family health history in primary care.

Publications

Comparing electronic health record portals to obtain patient-entered family health history in primary care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets