Patient access to medical records and healthcare outcomes: a systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
We conducted a systematic review to determine the effect of providing patients access to their medical records (electronic or paper-based) on healthcare quality, as defined by measures of safety, effectiveness, patient-centeredness, timeliness, efficiency, and equity.Methods
Articles indexed in PubMed from January 1970 to January 2012 were reviewed. Twenty-seven English-language controlled studies were included. Outcomes were categorized as measures of effectiveness (n=19), patient-centeredness (n=16), and efficiency (n=2); no study addressed safety, timeliness, or equity.Results
Outcomes were equivocal with respect to several aspects of effectiveness and patient-centeredness. Efficiency outcomes in terms of frequency of in-person and telephone encounters were mixed. Access to health records appeared to enhance patients' perceptions of control and reduced or had no effect on patient anxiety.Conclusion
Although few positive findings generally favored patient access, the literature is unclear on whether providing patients access to their medical records improves quality.
SUBMITTER: Davis Giardina T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4078277 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jul-Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Patient access to medical records and healthcare outcomes: a systematic review.
Davis Giardina Traber T Menon Shailaja S Parrish Danielle E DE Sittig Dean F DF Singh Hardeep H
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA 20131023 4
<h4>Objectives</h4>We conducted a systematic review to determine the effect of providing patients access to their medical records (electronic or paper-based) on healthcare quality, as defined by measures of safety, effectiveness, patient-centeredness, timeliness, efficiency, and equity.<h4>Methods</h4>Articles indexed in PubMed from January 1970 to January 2012 were reviewed. Twenty-seven English-language controlled studies were included. Outcomes were categorized as measures of effectiveness (n ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:The Health Insurance Privacy and Portability Act (HIPPA) stipulates that patients must be permitted to review and amend their medical records. As information technology makes medical records more accessible to patients, it may become more commonplace for patients to review their records routinely. This article analyzes the potential benefits and drawbacks of facilitating patient access to the medical record by reviewing previously published research. Previous research includes analysis of clinical notes, surveys of patients and practitioners, and studies of patient-accessible medical records. Overall, studies suggest the potential for modest benefits (for instance, in enhancing doctor-patient communication). Risks (for instance, increasing patient worry or confusion) appear to be minimal in medical patients. The studies, however, were of limited quality and low statistical power to detect the variety of outcomes that may result from implementation of a patient-accessible medical record. The data from these studies lay the foundation for future research.
| S-EPMC150366 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOnline access to computerized medical records has the potential to improve convenience, satisfaction, and care for patients, and to facilitate more efficient organization and delivery of care.ObjectiveThe objective of this review is to explore the use and impact of having online access to computerized medical records and services for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in primary care.MethodsMultiple international databases including Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library were searched between 2004 and 2016. No limitations were placed on study design, though we applied detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria to each study. Thematic analysis was used to synthesize the evidence. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Toolkit was used to appraise study quality.ResultsA search identified 917 studies, of which 28 were included. Five themes were identified: (1) disparities in uptake by age, gender, ethnicity, educational attainment, and number of comorbidities, with young men in full-time employment using these services most; (2) improved health outcomes: glycemic control was improved, but blood pressure results were mixed; (3) self-management support from improved self-care and shared management occurred especially soon after diagnosis and when complications emerged. There was a generally positive effect on physician-patient relationships; (4) accessibility: patients valued more convenient access when online access to computerized medical records and services work; and (5) technical challenges, barriers to use, and system features that impacted patient and physician use. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Toolkit rated 3 studies as 100%, 19 studies as 75%, 4 studies as 50%, and 1 study scored only 25%.ConclusionsPatients valued online access to computerized medical records and services, although in its current state of development it may increase disparities. Online access to computerized medical records appears to be safe and is associated with improved glycemic control, but there was a lack of rigorous evidence in terms of positive health outcomes for other complications, such as blood pressure. Patients remain concerned about how these systems work, the rules, and timeliness of using these systems.
| S-EPMC6054706 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Internationally, patient access to notes is increasing. This has been driven by respect for patient autonomy, often recognised as a primary tenet of medical ethics: patients should be able to access their records to be fully engaged with their care. While research has been conducted on the impact of patient access to outpatient and primary care records and to patient portals, there is no such review looking at access to hospital medical records in real time, nor an ethical analysis of the issues involved in such a change in process. METHODS:This study employed a systematic review framework in two stems, to integrate literature identified from two searches: Medline, CINAHL and Scopus databases were conducted, (for (1) hospitalised patients, patient access to records and its effects on communication and trust within the doctor-patient relationship; and (2) patient access to medical records and the ethical implications identified). The qualitative and quantitative results of both searches were integrated and critically analysed. RESULTS:3954 empirical and 4929 ethical studies were identified; 18 papers representing 16 studies were identified for review (12 empirical and 6 ethical). The review reveals a consensus that our current approach to giving information to patients - almost exclusively verbally - is insufficient; that patient access to notes is a welcome next step for patient-centred care, but that simply allowing full access, without explanation or summary, is also insufficient. Several ethical implications need to be considered: increased information could improve patient trust and knowledge but might transfer an (unwelcome) sense of responsibility to patients; doctors and patients have conflicting views on how much information should be shared and when; sharing written information might increase the already significant disparity in access to health care, and have unforeseen opportunity costs. The impact on medical practice of sharing notes in real time will also need to be evaluated. CONCLUSIONS:The review presents encouraging data to support patient access to medical notes. However, sharing information is a critical part of clinical practice; changing how it is done could have significant empirical and ethical impacts; any changes should be carefully evaluated.
| S-EPMC7053049 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10646724 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Evaluating the patient impact of health professions education is a societal priority with many challenges. Researchers would benefit from a summary of topics studied and potential methodological problems. We sought to summarize key information on patient outcomes identified in a comprehensive systematic review of simulation-based instruction.Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Scopus, key journals, and bibliographies of previous reviews through May 2011.Original research in any language measuring the direct effects on patients of simulation-based instruction for health professionals, in comparison with no intervention or other instruction.Two reviewers independently abstracted information on learners, topics, study quality including unit of analysis, and validity evidence. We pooled outcomes using random effects.From 10,903 articles screened, we identified 50 studies reporting patient outcomes for at least 3,221 trainees and 16,742 patients. Clinical topics included airway management (14 studies), gastrointestinal endoscopy (12), and central venous catheter insertion (8). There were 31 studies involving postgraduate physicians and seven studies each involving practicing physicians, nurses, and emergency medicine technicians. Fourteen studies (28 %) used an appropriate unit of analysis. Measurement validity was supported in seven studies reporting content evidence, three reporting internal structure, and three reporting relations with other variables. The pooled Hedges' g effect size for 33 comparisons with no intervention was 0.47 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.63); and for nine comparisons with non-simulation instruction, it was 0.36 (95 % CI, -0.06 to 0.78).Focused field in education; high inconsistency (I(2)?>?50 % in most analyses).Simulation-based education was associated with small-moderate patient benefits in comparison with no intervention and non-simulation instruction, although the latter did not reach statistical significance. Unit of analysis errors were common, and validity evidence was infrequently reported.
| S-EPMC3710391 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundEngaging patients in the delivery of health care has the potential to improve health outcomes and patient satisfaction. Patient portals may enhance patient engagement by enabling patients to access their electronic medical records (EMRs) and facilitating secure patient-provider communication.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to review literature describing patient portals tethered to an EMR in inpatient settings, their role in patient engagement, and their impact on health care delivery in order to identify factors and best practices for successful implementation of this technology and areas that require further research.MethodsA systematic search for articles in the PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase databases was conducted using keywords associated with patient engagement, electronic health records, and patient portals and their respective subject headings in each database. Articles for inclusion were evaluated for quality using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) for systematic review articles and the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs for empirical studies. Included studies were categorized by their focus on input factors (eg, portal design), process factors (eg, portal use), and output factors (eg, benefits) and by the valence of their findings regarding patient portals (ie, positive, negative, or mixed).ResultsThe systematic search identified 58 articles for inclusion. The inputs category was addressed by 40 articles, while the processes and outputs categories were addressed by 36 and 46 articles, respectively: 47 articles addressed multiple themes across the three categories, and 11 addressed only a single theme. Nineteen articles had high- to very high-quality, 21 had medium quality, and 18 had low- to very low-quality. Findings in the inputs category showed wide-ranging portal designs; patients' privacy concerns and lack of encouragement from providers were among portal adoption barriers while information access and patient-provider communication were among facilitators. Several methods were used to train portal users with varying success. In the processes category, sociodemographic characteristics and medical conditions of patients were predictors of portal use; some patients wanted unlimited access to their EMRs, personalized health education, and nonclinical information; and patients were keen to use portals for communicating with their health care teams. In the outputs category, some but not all studies found patient portals improved patient engagement; patients perceived some portal functions as inadequate but others as useful; patients and staff thought portals may improve patient care but could cause anxiety in some patients; and portals improved patient safety, adherence to medications, and patient-provider communication but had no impact on objective health outcomes.ConclusionsWhile the evidence is currently immature, patient portals have demonstrated benefit by enabling the discovery of medical errors, improving adherence to medications, and providing patient-provider communication, etc. High-quality studies are needed to fully understand, improve, and evaluate their impact.
| S-EPMC6482406 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundExtensive debate exists in the healthcare community over whether outcomes of medical care at teaching hospitals and other healthcare units are better or worse than those at the respective nonteaching ones. Thus, our goal was to systematically evaluate the evidence pertaining to this question.Methods and findingsWe reviewed all studies that compared teaching versus nonteaching healthcare structures for mortality or any other patient outcome, regardless of health condition. Studies were retrieved from PubMed, contact with experts, and literature cross-referencing. Data were extracted on setting, patients, data sources, author affiliations, definition of compared groups, types of diagnoses considered, adjusting covariates, and estimates of effect for mortality and for each other outcome. Overall, 132 eligible studies were identified, including 93 on mortality and 61 on other eligible outcomes (22 addressed both). Synthesis of the available adjusted estimates on mortality yielded a summary relative risk of 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.00) for teaching versus nonteaching healthcare structures and 1.04 (95% CI, 0.99-1.10) for minor teaching versus nonteaching ones. There was considerable heterogeneity between studies (I(2) = 72% for the main analysis). Results were similar in studies using clinical and those using administrative databases. No differences were seen in the 14 studies fully adjusting for volume/experience, severity, and comorbidity (relative risk 1.01). Smaller studies did not differ in their results from larger studies. Differences were seen for some diagnoses (e.g., significantly better survival for breast cancer and cerebrovascular accidents in teaching hospitals and significantly better survival from cholecystectomy in nonteaching hospitals), but these were small in magnitude. Other outcomes were diverse, but typically teaching healthcare structures did not do better than nonteaching ones.ConclusionsThe available data are limited by their nonrandomized design, but overall they do not suggest that a healthcare facility's teaching status on its own markedly improves or worsens patient outcomes. Differences for specific diseases cannot be excluded, but are likely to be small.
| S-EPMC1564172 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient advisory councils are a way for healthcare organizations to promote patient engagement. Despite mandates to implement patient advisory councils through programs like the Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH), there is a paucity of data measuring the impact of patients functioning in advisory roles. Our objective is to investigate whether patient engagement in patient advisory councils is linked to improvements in clinical quality, patient safety or patient satisfaction.MethodsWe searched PubMed, SCOPUS, CINAHL and Google Scholar for English language publications between November 2002 to August 2015, using a combination of "patient advisor" and "care outcomes" search terms. Article selection utilized dual screening facilitated by DistillerSR software, with group discussion to resolve discordance. Observational studies, randomized controlled trials, and case studies were included that described patients serving in an advisory role where primary outcomes were mentioned. Reference lists of included studies and grey literature searches were conducted. Qualitative thematic analysis was performed to synthesize results.ResultsDatabase searching yielded 639 articles total after removing duplicates, with 129 articles meeting full text inclusion criteria. 32 articles were identified for final review, 16 of which were case studies. Advisory roles included patient advisory councils, ad-hoc patient committees, community advisory councils, experience-based co-design, and other. Four practice-based studies from one research group, involving community advisors in the design of public health interventions, found improved clinical outcomes. No prospective experimental studies assessed the impact of patient advisors on patient safety or patient satisfaction. One cluster-randomized RCT showed that patient advisors helped health care planning efforts identify priorities more aligned with the PCMH. Ten case studies reported anecdotal benefit to individual patient advisors.ConclusionFive included studies demonstrate promising methods for evaluating patient engagement in healthcare delivery and describe impacts on clinical outcomes and priority setting. Based on the case studies found, patient advisors tend to contribute to patient-facing services that may affect clinical care but are not easily evaluated. As clinics and hospitals implement patient advisory councils, rigorous evaluation of their programs is needed to support the expansion of system-level patient engagement.Trial registrationThis systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO database of the University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (ID: 2015: CRD42015030020 ).
| S-EPMC5651621 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundeHealth tools such as patient portals and personal health records, also known as patient-centered digital health records, can engage and empower individuals with chronic health conditions. Patients who are highly engaged in their care have improved disease knowledge, self-management skills, and clinical outcomes.ObjectiveWe aimed to systematically review the effects of patient-centered digital health records on clinical and patient-reported outcomes, health care utilization, and satisfaction among patients with chronic conditions and to assess the feasibility and acceptability of their use.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Cochrane, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO databases between January 2000 and December 2021. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. Eligible studies were those evaluating digital health records intended for nonhospitalized adult or pediatric patients with a chronic condition. Patients with a high disease burden were a subgroup of interest. Primary outcomes included clinical and patient-reported health outcomes and health care utilization. Secondary outcomes included satisfaction, feasibility, and acceptability. Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools were used for quality assessment. Two reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts. Associations between health record use and outcomes were categorized as beneficial, neutral or clinically nonrelevant, or undesired.ResultsOf the 7716 unique publications examined, 81 (1%) met the eligibility criteria, with a total of 1,639,556 participants across all studies. The most commonly studied diseases included diabetes mellitus (37/81, 46%), cardiopulmonary conditions (21/81, 26%), and hematology-oncology conditions (14/81, 17%). One-third (24/81, 30%) of the studies were randomized controlled trials. Of the 81 studies that met the eligibility criteria, 16 (20%) were of high methodological quality. Reported outcomes varied across studies. The benefits of patient-centered digital health records were most frequently reported in the category health care utilization on the "use of recommended care services" (10/13, 77%), on the patient-reported outcomes "disease knowledge" (7/10, 70%), "patient engagement" (13/28, 56%), "treatment adherence" (10/18, 56%), and "self-management and self-efficacy" (10/19, 53%), and on the clinical outcome "laboratory parameters," including HbA1c and low-density lipoprotein (LDL; 16/33, 48%). Beneficial effects on "health-related quality of life" were seen in only 27% (4/15) of studies. Patient satisfaction (28/30, 93%), feasibility (15/19, 97%), and acceptability (23/26, 88%) were positively evaluated. More beneficial effects were reported for digital health records that predominantly focus on active features. Beneficial effects were less frequently observed among patients with a high disease burden and among high-quality studies. No unfavorable effects were observed.ConclusionsThe use of patient-centered digital health records in nonhospitalized individuals with chronic health conditions is potentially associated with considerable beneficial effects on health care utilization, treatment adherence, and self-management or self-efficacy. However, for firm conclusions, more studies of high methodological quality are required.Trial registrationPROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) CRD42020213285; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=213285.
| S-EPMC9816956 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundElectronic patient portals provide a new method for sharing personal medical information with individual patients.ObjectiveOur aim was to review utilization patterns of the largest online patient portal in Canada's largest city.MethodsWe conducted a 4-year time-trend analysis of aggregated anonymous utilization data of the MyChart patient portal at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Ontario, Canada, from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2015. Prespecified analyses examined trends related to day (weekend vs weekday), season (July vs January), year (2012 vs 2015), and an extreme adverse weather event (ice storm of December 20-26, 2013). Primary endpoints included three measures of patient portal activity: registrations, logins, and pageviews.ResultsWe identified 32,325 patients who registered for a MyChart account during the study interval. Time-trend analysis showed no sign of attenuating registrations over time. Logins were frequent, averaged 734 total per day, and showed an increasing trend over time. Pageviews mirrored logins, averaged about 3029 total per day, and equated to about 5 pageviews during the average login. The most popular pageviews were clinical notes, followed by laboratory results and medical imaging reports. All measures of patient activity were lower on weekends compared to weekdays (P<.001) yet showed no significant changes related to seasons or extreme weather. No major security breach, malware attack, or software failure occurred during the study.ConclusionsOnline patient portals can provide a popular and reliable system for distributing personal medical information to active patients and may merit consideration for hospitals.
| S-EPMC5820458 | biostudies-literature