Dataset Information

Differential Effects of Outpatient Portal User Status on Inpatient Portal Use: Observational Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The decision to use patient portals can be influenced by multiple factors, including individuals' perceptions of the tool, which are based on both their personal skills and experiences. Prior experience with one type of portal may make individuals more comfortable with using newer portal technologies. Experienced outpatient portal users in particular may have confidence in their ability to use inpatient portals that have similar functionality. In practice, the use of both outpatient and inpatient portal technologies can provide patients with continuity of access to their health information across care settings, but the influence of one type of portal use on the use of other portals has not been studied.

Objective

This study aims to understand how patients' use of an inpatient portal is influenced by outpatient portal use.

Methods

This study included patients from an academic medical center who were provided access to an inpatient portal during their hospital stays between 2016 and 2018 (N=1571). We analyzed inpatient portal log files to investigate how inpatient portal use varied by using 3 categories of outpatient portal users: prior users, new users, and nonusers.

Results

Compared with prior users (695/1571, 44.24%) of an outpatient portal, new users (214/1571, 13.62%) had higher use of a select set of inpatient portal functions (messaging function: incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.33, 95% CI 1.06-1.67; function that provides access to the outpatient portal through the inpatient portal: IRR 1.34, 95% CI 1.13-1.58). Nonusers (662/1571, 42.14%), compared with prior users, had lower overall inpatient portal use (all active functions: IRR 0.68, 95% CI 0.60-0.78) and lower use of specific functions, which included the function to review vitals and laboratory results (IRR 0.51, 95% CI 0.36-0.73) and the function to access the outpatient portal (IRR 0.53, 95% CI 0.45-0.62). In comparison with prior users, nonusers also had lower odds of being comprehensive users (defined as using 8 or more unique portal functions; odds ratio [OR] 0.57, 95% CI 0.45-0.73) or composite users (defined as comprehensive users who initiated a 75th or greater percentile of portal sessions) of the inpatient portal (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.29-0.60).

Conclusions

Patients' use of an inpatient portal during their hospital stay appeared to be influenced by a combination of factors, including prior outpatient portal use. For new users, hospitalization itself, a major event that can motivate behavioral changes, may have influenced portal use. In contrast, nonusers might have lower self-efficacy in their ability to use technology to manage their health, contributing to their lower portal use. Understanding the relationship between the use of outpatient and inpatient portals can help direct targeted implementation strategies that encourage individuals to use these tools to better manage their health across care settings.

SUBMITTER: Fareed N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8122294 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Negative effects of psychotherapy (NEP) include side effects, malpractice, and unethical behavior. Its setting-specific frequencies and predictors are mostly unknown. The two presented studies aim to investigate NEP and its predictors systematically across different treatment settings. In study 1, N = 197 patients of a German outpatient center were recruited, on average, 3.76 years after the termination of psychotherapy. In study 2, data from N = 118 patients of two German inpatient clinics were collected at admission (t 0), discharge (t 1), and 9-month follow-up (t 2). All participants evaluated the negative effects of their previous out- or inpatient psychotherapy with the Inventory for the Balanced Assessment of Negative Effects in Psychotherapy and a priori hypothesized predictors. At least one side effect was reported by 37.3% of inpatients (t 2) and 15.2% of outpatients. At least one case of malpractice and unethical behavior was reported by 28.8% of inpatients (t 2) and 7.1% of outpatients. Inpatients reported significantly more side effects (U = 14347, z = 4.70, p < 0.001, r = 0.26) and malpractice and unethical behavior (U = 14168, z = 5.21, p < 0.001, r = 0.29) than outpatients. Rates of severe malpractice in the form of breaking confidentiality and physical and sexual abuse were less than 1% in both settings. Predictors of side effects were prior experience with psychotherapy and current interpersonal difficulties in the outpatient setting and higher motivation for psychotherapy (t 0) in the inpatient setting. Predictors of malpractice and unethical behavior were younger age in the outpatient setting and poor therapeutic alliance, prior negative experience with malpractice and unethical behavior, and higher outcome expectations in the inpatient setting. NEP are common in both, in- and outpatient settings. Inpatients are at higher risk for the NEP than outpatients. To safeguard patients' wellbeing, the systematic assessment and distinction of side effects and malpractice and unethical behavior should gain more attention in research and clinical practice.

Project description:BackgroundPatients have demonstrated an eagerness to use portals to access their health information and connect with care providers. While outpatient portals have been extensively studied, there is a recognized need for research that examines inpatient portals.ObjectiveWe conducted this study to improve our understanding about the role of a portal in the context of inpatient care. Our study focused on a large sample of the general adult inpatient population and obtained perspectives from both patients and care team members about inpatient portal use.MethodsWe interviewed patients (n = 120) who used an inpatient portal during their hospitalization at 15 days or 6 months after discharge to learn about their portal use. We also interviewed care team members (n = 331) 4 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after inpatient portal implementation to collect information about their ongoing perspectives about patients' use of the portal.ResultsThe perspectives of patients and care team members generally converged on their views of the inpatient portal. Three features-(1) ordering meals, (2) looking up health information, and (3) viewing the care team-were most commonly used; the secure messaging feature was less commonly used and of some concern to care team members. The inpatient portal benefited patients in four main ways: (1) promoted independence, (2) reduced anxiety, (3) informed families, and (4) increased empowerment.ConclusionInpatient portals are recognized as a tool that can enhance the delivery of patient-centered care. In addition to empowering patients by increasing their sense of control, inpatient portals can support family members and caregivers throughout the hospital stay. Given the consistency of perspectives about portal use across patients and care team members, our findings suggest that inpatient portals may facilitate shifts in organizational culture that increase the patient centeredness of care and improve patient experience in the hospital context.

Project description:BackgroundWeb-based outpatient portals help patients engage in the management of their health by allowing them to access their medical information, schedule appointments, track their medications, and communicate with their physicians and care team members. Initial studies have shown that portal adoption positively affects health outcomes; however, early studies typically relied on survey data. Using data from health portal applications, we conducted systematic assessments of patients' use of an outpatient portal to examine how patients engage with the tool.ObjectiveThis study aimed to document the functionality of an outpatient portal in the context of outpatient care by mining portal usage data and to provide insights into how patients use this tool.MethodsUsing audit log files from the outpatient portal associated with the electronic health record system implemented at a large multihospital academic medical center, we investigated the behavioral traces of a study population of 2607 patients who used the portal between July 2015 and February 2019. Patient portal use was defined as having an active account and having accessed any portal function more than once during the study time frame.ResultsThrough our analysis of audit log file data of the number and type of user interactions, we developed a taxonomy of functions and actions and computed analytic metrics, including frequency and comprehensiveness of use. We additionally documented the computational steps required to diagnose artifactual data and arrive at valid usage metrics. Of the 2607 patients in our sample, 2511 were active users of the patients portal where the median number of sessions was 94 (IQR 207). Function use was comprehensive at the patient level, while each session was instead limited to the use of one specific function. Only 17.45% (78,787/451,762) of the sessions were linked to activities involving more than one portal function.ConclusionsIn discussing the full methodological choices made in our analysis, we hope to promote the replicability of our study at other institutions and contribute to the establishment of best practices that can facilitate the adoption of behavioral metrics that enable the measurement of patient engagement based on the outpatient portal use.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Inpatient portals (IPPs) have the potential to increase patient engagement and satisfaction with their health care. An IPP provides a hospitalized patient with similar functions to those found in outpatient portals, including the ability to view vital signs, laboratory results, and medication information; schedule appointments; and communicate with their providers. However, IPPs may offer additional functions such as meal planning, real-time messaging with the inpatient care team, daily schedules, and access to educational materials relevant to their specific condition. In practice, IPPs have been developed as websites and tablet apps, with hospitals providing the required technology as a component of care during the patient's stay. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to describe how inpatients are using IPPs at the first academic medical center to implement a system-wide IPP and document the challenges and choices associated with this analytic process. METHODS:We analyzed the audit log files of IPP users hospitalized between January 2014 and January 2016. Data regarding the date/time and duration of interactions with each of the MyChart Bedside modules (eg, view lab results or medications and patient schedule) and activities (eg, messaging the provider and viewing educational videos) were captured as part of the system audit logs. The development of a construct to describe the length of time associated with a single coherent use of the tool-which we call a session-provides a foundational unit of analysis. We defined frequency as the number of sessions a patient has during a given provision day. We defined comprehensiveness in terms of the percentage of functions that an individual uses during a given provision day. RESULTS:The analytic process presented data challenges such as length of stay and tablet-provisioning factors. This study presents data visualizations to illustrate a series of data-cleaning issues. In the presence of these robust approaches to data cleaning, we present the baseline usage patterns associated with our patient panel. In addition to frequency and comprehensiveness, we present considerations of median data to mitigate the effect of outliers. CONCLUSIONS:Although other studies have published usage data associated with IPPs, most have not explicated the challenges and choices associated with the analytic approach deployed within each study. Our intent in this study was to be somewhat exhaustive in this area, in part, because replicability requires common metrics. Our hope is that future researchers in this area will avail themselves of these perspectives to engage in critical assessment moving forward.