Dataset Information

Dermatopathologists' Experience With and Perceptions of Patient Online Access to Pathologic Test Result Reports.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Many patients presently have access to their pathologic test result reports via online patient portals, yet little is known about pathologists' perspective on this topic.

Objective

To examine dermatopathologists' experience and perceptions of patient online access to pathology reports.

Design, setting, and participants

A survey of 160 dermatopathologists currently practicing in the United States who are board certified and/or fellowship trained in dermatopathology was conducted between July 15, 2018, and September 23, 2019. Those who reported interpreting skin biopsies of melanocytic lesions within the previous year and expected to continue interpreting them for the next 2 years were included.

Main outcomes and measures

Dermatopathologists' demographic and clinical characteristics, experiences with patient online access to pathologic test result reports, potential behaviors and reactions to patient online access to those reports, and effects on patients who read their pathologic test result reports online.

Results

Of the 160 participating dermatopathologists from the 226 eligible for participation (71% response rate), 107 were men (67%); mean (SD) age was 49 (9.7) years (range, 34-77 years). Ninety-one participants (57%) reported that patients have contacted them directly about pathologic test reports they had written. Some participants noted that they would decrease their use of abbreviations and/or specialized terminology (57 [36%]), change the way they describe lesions suspicious for cancer (29 [18%]), and need specialized training in communicating with patients (39 [24%]) if patients were reading their reports. Most respondents perceived that patient understanding would increase (97 [61%]) and the quality of patient-physician communication would increase (98 [61%]) owing to the availability of online reports. Slightly higher proportions perceived increased patient worry (114 [71%]) and confusion (116 [73%]). However, on balance, most participants (114 [71%]) agreed that making pathologic test result reports available to patients online is a good idea.

Conclusions and relevance

Dermatopathologists in this survey study perceived both positive and negative consequences of patient online access to pathologic test result reports written by the respondents. Most participants believe that making pathologic test result reports available to patients online is a good idea; however, they also report concerns about patient worry and confusion increasing as a result. Further research regarding best practices and the effect on both patients and clinicians is warranted.

SUBMITTER: Shucard H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6990839 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Dermatopathologists' Experience With and Perceptions of Patient Online Access to Pathologic Test Result Reports.

Shucard Hannah H Piepkorn Michael W MW Reisch Lisa M LM Kerr Kathleen F KF Radick Andrea C AC Wang Pin-Chieh PC Knezevich Stevan R SR Barnhill Raymond L RL Elder David E DE Elmore Joann G JG

JAMA dermatology 20200301 3

<h4>Importance</h4>Many patients presently have access to their pathologic test result reports via online patient portals, yet little is known about pathologists' perspective on this topic.<h4>Objective</h4>To examine dermatopathologists' experience and perceptions of patient online access to pathology reports.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>A survey of 160 dermatopathologists currently practicing in the United States who are board certified and/or fellowship trained in dermatopatholog ...[more]

PMID: 31995131

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportancePatients are increasingly being given access to their test results, but little is known about how preferences vary with the test under consideration or the results of the test (normal or abnormal).ObjectiveThis study was conducted to examine preferences for test result communication.Design, setting, and participantsWe surveyed adults to explore their preferences for test result notification for three common diagnostic tests of varying "emotional impact" (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry [DXA], genital herpes, and cancer biopsy) when test results were 1) normal and 2) abnormal. We conducted our survey between June and August 2012 on the campus of an academic medical center. For each scenario, subjects were asked to rank seven methods that might be used to communicate test results (letter, unsecured email, secured email, text message, telephone call, secure Web portal, office visit) in order of acceptability.Main outcome measuresThe main measures were the percentage of respondents who ranked a particular test result notification method favorably and the percentage who ranked it as unacceptable.ResultsWhen test results were normal, subjects' notification preferences were generally similar for DXA, herpes and cancer biopsy, with telephone and letter ranked most favorably for all three tests. Conversely, text message and unsecured email were viewed as unacceptable notification methods for normal results by 45.0-55.0 % of subjects across all three tests. When test results were abnormal, office visits became more popular. A higher proportion of subjects ranked office visits as their most preferred notification method for our test with high "emotional impact" (cancer biopsy) (38.4 %) as compared to DXA (28.2 %) and herpes (27.9 %) (P = 0.02). For most test scenarios, younger subjects appeared to rank electronic communication modalities (secure email or Web portal) higher than older subjects, though this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.29).ConclusionsPreferences for test result notification can differ substantially depending upon the test under consideration and results of the test. Providers and health care systems should consider these factors when deciding how to communicate results to patients.

Project description:BackgroundIn the United States, attention has been focused on "open notes" and "open results" since the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology implemented the 21st Century Cures Act Final Rule on information blocking. Open notes is an established best practice, but open results remains controversial, especially for diseases associated with stigma, morbidity, and mortality. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with all three of these effects and represents an ideal disease for the study of open results for sensitive test results.ObjectivesThis study evaluates patient perspectives related to receiving COVID-19 test results via an online patient portal prior to discussion with a clinician.MethodsWe surveyed adults who underwent COVID-19 testing between March 1, 2020 and October 21, 2020 who agreed to be directly contacted about COVID-19-related research about their perspectives on receiving test results via a patient portal. We evaluated user roles (i.e., patient vs. care partner), demographic information, ease of use, impact of immediate release, notification of results, impact of viewing results on health management, and importance of sharing results with others.ResultsUsers were mostly patients themselves. Users found the portal easy to use but expressed mixed preferences about the means of notification of result availability (e.g., email, text, or phone call). Users found immediate access to results useful for managing their health, employment, and family/childcare. Many users shared their results and encouraged others to get tested. Our cohort consisted mostly of non-Hispanic white, highly educated, English-speaking patients.ConclusionOverall, patients found open results useful for COVID-19 testing and few expressed increased worries from receiving their results via the patient portal. The demographics of our cohort highlight the need for further research in patient portal equity in the age of open results.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The electronic health record (EHR) has been fully established in all Norwegian hospitals. Patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) are available to citizens aged 16 years and older through the national health portal Helsenorge. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed at understanding how patients use PAEHRs. Three research questions were addressed in order to explore (1) characteristics of users, (2) patients' use of the service, and (3) patient experience with the service. METHODS:We conducted an online survey of users who had accessed their EHR online at least once through the national health portal. Patients from two of the four health regions in Norway were invited to participate. Quantitative data were supplemented by qualitative information. RESULTS:A total of 1037 respondents participated in the survey, most of whom used the PAEHR regularly (305/1037, 29.4%) or when necessary (303/1037, 29.2%). Service utilization was associated with self-reported health, age, gender, education, and health care professional background. Patients found the service useful to look up health information (687/778, 88.3%), keep track of their treatment (684/778, 87.9%), prepare for a hospital appointment (498/778, 64.0%), and share documents with their general practitioner (292/778, 37.5%) or family (194/778, 24.9%). Most users found it easy to access their EHR online (965/1037, 93.1%) and did not encounter technical challenges. The vast majority of respondents (643/755, 85.2%) understood the content, despite over half of them acknowledging some difficulties with medical terms or phrases. The overall satisfaction with the service was very high (700/755, 92.7%). Clinical advantages to the patients included enhanced knowledge of their health condition (565/691, 81.8%), easier control over their health status (685/740, 92.6%), better self-care (571/653, 87.4%), greater empowerment (493/674, 73.1%), easier communication with health care providers (493/618, 79.8%), and increased security (655/730, 89.7%). Patients with complex, long-term or chronic conditions seemed to benefit the most. PAEHRs were described as useful, informative, effective, helpful, easy, practical, and safe. CONCLUSIONS:PAEHRs in Norway are becoming a mature service and are perceived as useful by patients. Future studies should include experimental designs focused on specific populations or chronic conditions that are more likely to achieve clinically meaningful benefits. Continuous evaluation programs should be conducted to assess implementation and changes of wide-scale routine services over time.

Project description:ImportanceThe 21st Century Cures Act Final Rule mandates the immediate electronic availability of test results to patients, likely empowering them to better manage their health. Concerns remain about unintended effects of releasing abnormal test results to patients.ObjectiveTo assess patient and caregiver attitudes and preferences related to receiving immediately released test results through an online patient portal.Design, setting, and participantsThis large, multisite survey study was conducted at 4 geographically distributed academic medical centers in the US using an instrument adapted from validated surveys. The survey was delivered in May 2022 to adult patients and care partners who had accessed test results via an online patient portal account between April 5, 2021, and April 4, 2022.ExposuresAccess to test results via a patient portal between April 5, 2021, and April 4, 2022.Main outcomes and measuresResponses to questions related to demographics, test type and result, reaction to result, notification experience and future preferences, and effect on health and well-being were aggregated. To evaluate characteristics associated with patient worry, logistic regression and pooled random-effects models were used to assess level of worry as a function of whether test results were perceived by patients as normal or not normal and whether patients were precounseled.ResultsOf 43 380 surveys delivered, there were 8139 respondents (18.8%). Most respondents were female (5129 [63.0%]) and spoke English as their primary language (7690 [94.5%]). The median age was 64 years (IQR, 50-72 years). Most respondents (7520 of 7859 [95.7%]), including 2337 of 2453 individuals (95.3%) who received nonnormal results, preferred to immediately receive test results through the portal. Few respondents (411 of 5473 [7.5%]) reported that reviewing results before they were contacted by a health care practitioner increased worry, though increased worry was more common among respondents who received abnormal results (403 of 2442 [16.5%]) than those whose results were normal (294 of 5918 [5.0%]). The result of the pooled model for worry as a function of test result normality was statistically significant (odds ratio [OR], 2.71; 99% CI, 1.96-3.74), suggesting an association between worry and nonnormal results. The result of the pooled model evaluating the association between worry and precounseling was not significant (OR, 0.70; 99% CI, 0.31-1.59).Conclusions and relevanceIn this multisite survey study of patient attitudes and preferences toward receiving immediately released test results via a patient portal, most respondents preferred to receive test results via the patient portal despite viewing results prior to discussion with a health care professional. This preference persisted among patients with nonnormal results.

Project description:IntroductionThe aim of this study is to describe the mealtime experience using the qualitative components of the Austin Health Patient Mealtime Experience Tool (AHPMET) to complement the quantitative findings of this tool.MethodsA multiphase, cross-sectional study was undertaken across all sites of Austin Health (Victoria, Australia) between March 2020 and November 2021. Patient mealtime experience was measured using the AHPMET. Descriptive statistics and a deductive thematic analysis approach described the patients' mealtime experiences.ResultsQuestionnaire data were collected from 149 participants. Patients were most satisfied with staff interactions, and least satisfied with dimensions of food quality, specifically, flavour, presentation, and menu variety. Clinical symptoms, nutrition impact symptoms and the patient's position were barriers to consumption.DiscussionFood quality was perceived as the poorest aspect of patient satisfaction with the hospital foodservice, particularly flavour, presentation, and menu variety. Future foodservice quality improvements must prioritise improving food quality to have the greatest impact on patient satisfaction. While clinical and organisational systems have a role in improving mealtime experience and oral intake, communicating patient perceptions of the mealtime experience is critical for responding to current perceptions of hospital food quality.ConclusionMealtime experience in the hospital has a significant impact on oral intake and patients' wider perception of hospital services. Questionnaires have been used to capture patient satisfaction with foodservice in the hospital; however, no comprehensive questionnaires including qualitative questions that capture the broader mealtime experience have been validated across different hospital settings. The tool developed through this study can be implemented in any acute and subacute health service to provide feedback and improve the mealtime experience of patients. This has the capacity to improve mealtime intake, mitigate malnutrition, and improve quality of life and patient outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundTo describe vascular access (VA)-related decision-making from the patient perspective, in patients who have already chosen hemodialysis as their renal replacement modality, and identify areas where physicians can improve this experience.MethodsIn-person, semi-structured interviews with 15 patients with end-stage kidney disease were systematically analyzed by two independent researchers using thematic analysis. Interviews were conducted until systematic analysis revealed no new themes.ResultsPatients had mean age 57 (range 22-85), with seven males and diverse racial/ethnic/marital status. All (15/15) patients viewed VA as "intertwined and interrelated" with dialysis, prioritized the dialysis, described the VA merely as the "hookup" to life-preserving dialysis and gave it minimal consideration. Three themes were identified: consolidation of dialysis and VA, reliance on supportive advisors and communication with physicians. Although 14/15 patients described processes common to medical decision-making, including information seeking, learning from the experiences of others, and weighing risks and benefits, they did not apply these processes specifically to VA. While all participants took ownership of the VA decision, they lacked clear understanding about the different types of VA and their consequences. Most patients (14/15) depended on family and friends for reinforcement, motivation and advice. Patients all described physician characteristics they associated with trustworthiness, the most common being listening and explaining, demonstrating empathy and making an effort to meet the patient's individual needs. Perceived arrogance, unavailability and lack of expertise represented untrustworthiness. The majority (14/15) accepted VA recommendations from physicians they found trustworthy and authoritative.ConclusionsThe study participants were minimally engaged in VA decision-making. Educational aids and shared decision-making tools are needed to empower patients to make better-informed, self-efficacious VA decisions.

Dataset Information

Dermatopathologists' Experience With and Perceptions of Patient Online Access to Pathologic Test Result Reports.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Dermatopathologists' Experience With and Perceptions of Patient Online Access to Pathologic Test Result Reports.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets