Dataset Information

Applicability of Different Electronic Record Types for Use in Patient Recruitment Support Systems: Comparative Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Clinical trials constitute an important pillar in medical research. It is beneficial to support recruitment for clinical trials using software tools, so-called patient recruitment support systems; however, such information technology systems have not been frequently used to date. Because medical information systems' underlying data collection methods strongly influence the benefits of implementing patient recruitment support systems, we investigated patient recruitment support system requirements and corresponding electronic record types such as electronic medical record, electronic health record, electronic medical case record, personal health record, and personal cross-enterprise health record.

Objective

The aim of this study was to (1) define requirements for successful patient recruitment support system deployment and (2) differentiate and compare patient recruitment support system-relevant properties of different electronic record types.

Methods

In a previous study, we gathered requirements for patient recruitment support systems from literature and unstructured interviews with stakeholders (15 patients, 3 physicians, 5 data privacy experts, 4 researchers, and 5 staff members of hospital administration). For this investigation, the requirements were amended and categorized based on input from scientific sessions. Based on literature with a focus on patient recruitment support system-relevant properties, different electronic record types (electronic medical record, electronic health record, electronic medical case record, personal health record and personal cross-enterprise health record) were described in detail. We also evaluated which patient recruitment support system requirements can be achieved for each electronic record type.

Results

Patient recruitment support system requirements (n=16) were grouped into 4 categories (consent management, patient recruitment management, trial management, and general requirements). All 16 requirements could be partially met by at least 1 type of electronic record. Only 1 requirement was fully met by all 5 types. According to our analysis, personal cross-enterprise health records fulfill most requirements for patient recruitment support systems. They demonstrate advantages especially in 2 domains (1) supporting patient empowerment and (2) granting access to the complete medical history of patients.

Conclusions

In combination with patient recruitment support systems, personal cross-enterprise health records prove superior to other electronic record types, and therefore, this integration approach should be further investigated.

SUBMITTER: Schreiweis B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8493461 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background/aimCost-efficient methods are essential for successful participant recruitment in clinical trials. Patient portal messages are an emerging means of recruiting potentially eligible patients into trials. We assessed the response rate and complaint rate from direct-to-patient, targeted recruitment through patient portals of an electronic medical record for a clinical trial, and compared response rates by differences in message content.MethodsThe Study to Understand Fall Reduction and Vitamin D in You (STURDY) trial is a National Institutes of Health-sponsored, community-based study of vitamin D supplementation for fall prevention in older adults conducted at Johns Hopkins. Potential participants were identified using the Epic electronic medical record at the Johns Hopkins Health System based on age (≥70 years), ZIP code (30-mile radius of study site), and prior activation of a patient portal account. We prepared a shorter message and a longer message. Both had basic information about study participation, but the longer message also contained information about the significance of the study and a personal invitation from the STURDY principal investigator. The Hopkins Institutional Review Board did not require prior consent from the patient or their providers. We calculated the response rate and tracked the number of complaints and requests for removal from future messages. We also determined response rate according to message content.ResultsOf the 5.5 million individuals receiving care at the Johns Hopkins Health System, a sample of 6896 met our inclusion criteria and were sent one patient portal recruitment message between 6 April 2017 and 3 August 2017. Assessment of enrollment by this method ended on 1 December 2017. There were 116 patients who expressed interest in the study (response rate: 1.7%). Twelve (0.2%) recipients were randomized. There were two complaints (0.03%) and one request to unsubscribe from future recruitment messages (0.01%). Response rate was higher with the longer message than the shorter message (2.1% vs 1.2%; p = 0.005).ConclusionPatient portal messages inviting seniors to participate in a randomized controlled trial resulted in a response rate similar to commercial email marketing and resulted in very few complaints or opt-out requests. Furthermore, a longer message with more content enhanced response rate. Recruitment through patient portals might be an effective strategy to enroll trial participants.

Project description:ImportanceAs health information transparency increases, patients more often seek their health data. More than 44 million patients in the US can now readily access their ambulatory visit notes online, and the practice is increasing abroad. Few studies have assessed documentation errors that patients identify in their notes and how these may inform patient engagement and safety strategies.ObjectiveTo assess the frequency and types of errors identified by patients who read open ambulatory visit notes.Design, setting, and participantsIn this survey study, a total of 136?815 patients at 3 US health care organizations with open notes, including 79 academic and community ambulatory care practices, received invitations to an online survey from June 5 to October 20, 2017. Patients who had at least 1 ambulatory note and had logged onto the portal at least once in the past 12 months were included. Data analysis was performed from July 3, 2018, to April 27, 2020.ExposuresAccess to ambulatory care open notes through patient portals for up to 7 years (2010-2017).Main outcomes and measuresProportion of patients reporting a mistake and how serious they perceived the mistake to be, factors associated with finding errors characterized by patients as serious, and categories of patient-reported errors.ResultsOf 136?815 patients who received survey invitations, 29?656 (21.7%) responded and 22?889 patients (mean [SD] age, 55.16 [15.96] years; 14 447 [63.1%] female; 18 301 [80.0%] white) read 1 or more notes in the past 12 months and completed error questions. Of these patients, 4830 (21.1%) reported a perceived mistake and 2043 (42.3%) reported that the mistake was serious (somewhat serious: 1563 [32.4%]; very serious: 480 [9.9%]). In multivariable analysis, female patients (relative risk [RR], 1.79; 95% CI, 1.72-1.85), more educated patients (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.29-1.48), sicker patients (RR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.84-1.94), those aged 45 to 64 years (RR, 2.23; 95% CI, 2.06-2.42), those 65 years or older (RR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.73-2.32), and those who read more than 1 note (2-3 notes: RR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.34-2.47; ?4 notes: RR, 3.09; 95% CI, 2.02-4.73) were more likely to report a mistake that they found to be serious compared with their reference groups. After categorization of patient-reported very serious mistakes, those specifically mentioning the word diagnosis or describing a specific error in current or past diagnoses were most common (98 of 356 [27.5%]), followed by inaccurate medical history (85 of 356 [23.9%]), medications or allergies (50 of 356 [14.0%]), and tests, procedures, or results (30 of 356 [8.4%]). A total of 23 (6.5%) reflected notes reportedly written on the wrong patient. Of 433 very serious errors, 255 (58.9%) included at least 1 perceived error potentially associated with the diagnostic process (eg, history, physical examination, tests, referrals, and communication).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, patients who read ambulatory notes online perceived mistakes, a substantial proportion of which they found to be serious. Older and sicker patients were twice as likely to report a serious error compared with younger and healthier patients, indicating important safety and quality implications. Sharing notes with patients may help engage them to improve record accuracy and health care safety together with practitioners.

Project description:BackgroundElectronic Health Records (EHRs) are now widely used to create a single, shared, and reliable source of patient data throughout healthcare organizations. However, health professionals continue to experience mismatches between their working practices and what the EHR allows or directs them to do. Health professionals adopt working practices other than those imposed by the EHR to overcome such mismatches, known as workarounds. Our study aims to inductively develop a typology of enduring EHR workarounds and explore their consequences by answering the question: What types of EHR workarounds persist, and what are the user-perceived consequences?MethodsThis single case study was conducted within the Internal Medicine department of a Dutch hospital that had implemented an organization-wide, commercial EHR system over two years ago. Data were collected through observations of six EHR users (see Additional file 1, observation scheme) and 17 semi-structured interviews with physicians, nurses, administrators, and EHR support staff members. Documents were analysed to contextualize these data (see Additional file 2, interview protocol).ResultsThrough a qualitative analysis, 11 workarounds were identified, predominantly performed by physicians. These workarounds are categorized into three types either performed while working with the system (in-system workflow sequence workarounds and in-system data entry workarounds) or bypassing the system (out-system workarounds). While these workarounds seem to offer short-term benefits for the performer, they often create threats for the user, the patient, the overall healthcare organization, and the system.ConclusionThis study increases our understanding of the enduring phenomenon of working around Electronic Health Records by presenting a typology of those workarounds that persist after adoption and by reflecting on the user-perceived risks and benefits. The typology helps EHR users and their managers to identify enduring types of workarounds and differentiate between the harmful and less harmful ones. This distinction can inform their decisions to discourage or obviate the need for certain workarounds, while legitimating others.

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.