Dataset Information

The effect of My Health Record use in the emergency department on clinician-assessed patient care: results from a survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The emergency department has been a major focus for the implementation of Australia's national electronic health record, known as My Health Record. However, the association between use of My Health Record in the emergency department setting and patient care is largely unknown. The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of emergency department clinicians regarding My Health Record use frequency, the benefits of My Health Record use (with a focus on patient care) and the barriers to use.

Methods

All 393 nursing, pharmacy, physician and allied health staff employed within the emergency department at a tertiary metropolitan public hospital in Melbourne were invited to participate in a web-based survey, between 1 May 2021 and 1 December 2021, during the height of the Delta and Omicron Covid-19 outbreaks in Victoria, Australia.

Results

Overall, the survey response rate was 18% (70/393). Approximately half of the sample indicated My Health Record use in the emergency department (n = 39, 56%, confidence interval [CI] 43-68%). The results showed that users typically only engaged with My Health Record less than once per shift (n = 15, 39%, CI 23-55%). Just over half (n = 19/39, 54%, CI 32-65%) of all participants who use My Health Record agreed they could remember a time when My Health Record had been critical to the care of a patient. Overall, clinicians indicated the biggest barrier preventing their use of My Health Record is that they forget to utilise the system.

Conclusion

The results suggest that My Health Record has not been adopted as routine practice in the emergency department, by the majority of participants. Close to half of self-identified users of My Health Record do not associate use as being critical to patient care. Instead, My Health Record may only be used in scenarios that clinicians perceive will yield the greatest benefit-which clinicians in this paper suggest is patients with chronic and complex conditions. Further research that explores the predictors to use and consumers most likely to benefit from use is recommended-and strategies to socialise this knowledge and educate clinicians is desperately required.

SUBMITTER: Mullins A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9255536 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHealth care provider usage of mobile devices is increasing globally; however, there is little understanding of patient perceptions on this behavior in a health care setting.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to assess patients' attitudes toward mobile device usage by health care providers in the emergency department and to identify predictors of these attitudes.MethodsThe study was carried out at the emergency department of a large academic tertiary care medical center in Lebanon. A cross-sectional survey design was adopted by administering a questionnaire to medically stable adult patients who presented to the emergency department with an emergency severity index of 3, 4, or 5 between January 2017 and March 2018. The questionnaire collected relevant patient demographic information and included questions related to their mobile device usage along with those evaluating attitudes for the use of mobile devices by health care providers with respect to six major domains: role in health care, distraction potential, impact on communication, empathy, privacy, and professionalism. The attitude toward mobile device usage by health care providers in the emergency department was the main outcome variable. A stepwise logistic regression model was used to assess the association between the outcome variable and the demographic and attitude-related independent variables.ResultsAmong the 438 eligible patients, 338 patients responded to the questionnaire for a response rate of 70.0%. Overall, 313/338 (92.6%) respondents agreed that mobile devices improve health care delivery, whereas 132/338 (39.1%) respondents were opposed to their usage by health care providers in the emergency department (95% CI: 34.0-44.4). The majority (240/338, 71.0%) of patients agreed that mobile devices are a source of distraction to health care providers in the workplace. Females (odds ratio [OR]=1.67, 95% CI: 1.00-2.78) as well as all patients (OR=2.54, 95% CI 1.36-4.76) who believed that mobile devices were a source of distraction, reflecting a lack of professionalism (OR=2.77, 95% CI 1.59-4.82) and impacting the provider's ability to relate to the patient (OR=2.93, 95% CI 1.72-4.99), were more likely to agree that mobile devices should not be used in the emergency department.ConclusionsPatients' negative attitude toward mobile device use in the emergency department is largely driven by patient gender (females), patient perception of the distraction potential of the devices, and their negative impact on the health care provider's empathy and professionalism. The findings of this study shed light on the importance of encouraging stakeholders to impose a digital professionalism code of conduct for providers working in acute health care settings.

Project description:Emergency department (ED) crowding is an increasing problem associated with adverse patient outcomes. ED expansion is one method advocated to reduce ED crowding. The objective of this analysis was to determine the effect of ED expansion on measures of ED crowding.This was a retrospective study using administrative data from two 11-month periods before and after the expansion of an ED from 33 to 53 adult beds in an academic medical center. ED volume, staffing, and hospital admission and occupancy data were obtained either from the electronic health record (EHR) or from administrative records. The primary outcome was the rate of patients who left without being treated (LWBT), and the secondary outcome was total ED boarding time for admitted patients. A multivariable robust linear regression model was used to determine whether ED expansion was associated with the outcome measures.The mean (±SD) daily adult volume was 128 (±14) patients before expansion and 145 (±17) patients after. The percentage of patients who LWBT was unchanged: 9.0% before expansion versus 8.3% after expansion (difference = 0.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.16% to 1.4%). Total ED boarding time increased from 160 to 180 hours/day (difference = 20 hours, 95% CI = 8 to 32 hours). After daily ED volume, low-acuity area volume, daily wait time, daily boarding hours, and nurse staffing were adjusted for, the percentage of patients who LWBT was not independently associated with ED expansion (p = 0.053). After ED admissions, ED intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, elective surgical admissions, hospital occupancy rate, ICU occupancy rate, and number of operational ICU beds were adjusted for, the increase in ED boarding hours was independently associated with the ED expansion (p = 0.005).An increase in ED bed capacity was associated with no significant change in the percentage of patients who LWBT, but had an unintended consequence of an increase in ED boarding hours. ED expansion alone does not appear to be an adequate solution to ED crowding.

Project description:(1) Background: My Health Record (MHR) is a relatively new nationwide Australian digital health record system accessible by patients and a range of healthcare professionals. Pharmacists will be key contributors and users of the MHR system, yet little is known about the perceived barriers and benefits of use. (2) Objective: To explore pharmacists' perspectives related to potential benefits and barriers associated with use of MHR. (3) Methods: An online survey was developed and face-validated. The survey was advertised to Australian pharmacists on pharmacy professional bodies' websites. This was a cross-sectional study using an anonymous questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the distribution of the data. Chi-square, Kendall's tau coefficient (tau-c) and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to examine the relationships where appropriate. (4) Results: A total of 63 pharmacists completed the survey. The majority of respondents worked in a metropolitan area (74%), and the most common workplace setting was community pharmacy (65%). Perceived benefits identified by responders include that the use of MHR would help with continuity of care (90%), and that it would improve the safety (71%) and quality (75%) of care they provided. Importantly, more than half of pharmacists surveyed agreed that MHR could reduce medication errors during dispensing (57%) and could improve professional relationships with patients (57%) and general practitioners (59%). Potential barriers identified by pharmacists included patients' concerns about privacy (81%), pharmacists' own concern about privacy (46%), lack of training, access to and confidence in using the system. Sixty six percent of respondents had concerns about the accuracy of information contained within MHR, particularly among hospital and general practice pharmacists (p = 0.016) and almost half (44%) had concerns about the security of information in the system, mainly pharmacists working at general practice and providing medication review services (p = 0.007). Overall satisfaction with MHR varied, with 48% satisfied, 33% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, and 19% dissatisfied, with a higher satisfaction rate among younger pharmacists (p = 0.032). (5) Conclusions: Pharmacists considered that the MHR offered key potential benefits, notably improving the safety and quality of care provided. To optimize the use of MHR, there is a need to improve privacy and data security measures, and to ensure adequate provision of user support and education surrounding the ability to integrate use of MHR with existing workflows and software.

Project description:Many studies have shown the tendency for people without a regular care provider or primary physician to make greater use of emergency departments. We sought to determine the effects of three aspects of care provided by primary physicians (physician specialty, continuity of care and comprehensiveness of care) on their patients' use of the emergency department.Using provincial administrative databases, we created a cohort of 367,315 adults aged 18 years and older. Participants were residents of urban areas of Quebec. Affiliation with a primary physician, the specialty of this physician (i.e., family physician v. specialist), continuity of care (as measured using the Usual Provider Continuity index) and comprehensiveness of care (i.e., number of complete annual examinations) were measured among participants (n = 311,701) who had visited a physician three or more times during a two-year baseline period. We used multivariable negative binomial regression to investigate the relationships between measures of care and the number of visits to emergency departments during a 12-month follow-up period.Among participants under 65 years of age, emergency department use was higher for those not affiliated than for those affiliated with a family physician (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.16) or a specialist (IRR 1.10, 95% CI 1.04-1.17). Among patients aged 65 years and older, having a specialist primary physician, as opposed to a family physician, predicted increased use of the emergency department (IRR 1.13, 95% CI 1.09-1.17). Greater continuity of care with a family physician predicted less use of the emergency department only among participants who made 25 or more visits to a physician during the baseline period. Greater continuity of care with a specialist predicted less use of the emergency department overall, particularly among participants with intermediate numbers of multimorbidities and admissions to hospital. Greater comprehensiveness of care by family physicians predicted less use of the emergency department.Efforts to increase the proportion of adults affiliated with a family physician should target older adults, people who visit physicians more frequently and people with multiple comorbidities and admissions to hospital.

Project description:Aim of the study: Poor safety culture, bad teamwork, non-functional inter-departmental working relationships and increased cognitive demands are associated with higher amounts of adverse events in hospitals. To improve patient safety, one of the first steps is to assess safety culture among health care providers in an institution. Considering the sparsity of studies addressing patient safety culture in Europe and Switzerland, the aim of the present study was to assess patient safety culture in the emergency department of a University Hospital in Switzerland. Methods: We employed the Hospital Survey On Patient Safety Culture, developed by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 140 questionnaires were distributed to nurses and physicians. Two weeks after the first questionnaire, we performed a sensitization campaign addressed to health care providers, and then repeated the survey. We calculated composite scores for each question category and percentages of positive responses for each dimension. For group comparisons such as possible differences relating to education and duration of employment and to compare results of the first and second survey we used T-tests. The results were compared to other published surveys outside of Switzerland. Results: Particularly positive assessments were found for the categories "nonpunitive response to errors", "teamwork within units", "supervisor/manager expectations and actions promoting patient safety" and, compared to other hospitals, also "staffing". The lowest average percent positive responses were found in the categories "frequencies of reported event", "teamwork across units" and "handoffs and transitions". Nurses and health care personnel with a longer employment history had an overall more negative assessment of patient safety culture, when compared to physicians and personnel with a shorter duration of employment, respectively. Conclusions: The present study has identified strengths and potential weaknesses in the safety culture of a large university hospital emergency department in Switzerland. The results provide opportunities for improvement of patient safety in particular in the reporting of adverse events, in interaction across units and patient transitions. Furthermore, as we employed a standardized self-assessment tool similar to previously published studies, the work contributes to the establishment of a benchmark for hospital safety culture at the national, European and international level.