BACKGROUND: Renal PatientView (RPV) is a novel, web-based system in the UK that provides patients with access to their laboratory results, in conjunction with patient information. AIM: To study how renal patients within our centre access and use RPV. METHODS: We sent out questionnaires in December 2011 to all 651 RPV users under our care. We collected information on aspects such as the frequency and timing of RPV usage, the parameters viewed by users, and the impact of RPV on their care. RESULTS: A total of 295 (45 %) questionnaires were returned. The predominant users of RPV were transplant patients (42 %) followed by pre-dialysis chronic kidney disease patients (37 %). Forty-two percent of RPV users accessed their results after their clinic appointments, 38 % prior to visiting the clinic. The majority of patients (76 %) had used the system to discuss treatment with their renal physician, while 20 % of patients gave permission to other members of their family to use RPV to monitor results on their behalf. Most users (78 %) reported accessing RPV on average 1-5 times/month. Most patients used RPV to monitor their kidney function, 81 % to check creatinine levels, 57 % to check potassium results. Ninety-two percent of patients found RPV easy to use and 93 % felt that overall the system helps them in taking care of their condition; 53 % of patients reported high satisfaction with RPV. CONCLUSION: Our results provide interesting insight into use of a system that gives patients web-based access to laboratory results. The fact that 20 % of patients delegate access to relatives also warrants further study. We propose that online access to laboratory results should be offered to all renal patients, although clinicians need to be mindful of the 'digital divide', i.e. part of the population that is not amenable to IT-based strategies for patient empowerment.
BACKGROUND: Renal PatientView (RPV) is a novel, web-based system in the UK that provides patients with access to their laboratory results, in conjunction with patient information. AIM: To study how renal patients within our centre access and use RPV. METHODS: We sent out questionnaires in December 2011 to all 651 RPV users under our care. We collected information on aspects such as the frequency and timing of RPV usage, the parameters viewed by users, and the impact of RPV on their care. RESULTS: A total of 295 (45 %) questionnaires were returned. The predominant users of RPV were transplant patients (42 %) followed by pre-dialysis chronic kidney diseasepatients (37 %). Forty-two percent of RPV users accessed their results after their clinic appointments, 38 % prior to visiting the clinic. The majority of patients (76 %) had used the system to discuss treatment with their renal physician, while 20 % of patients gave permission to other members of their family to use RPV to monitor results on their behalf. Most users (78 %) reported accessing RPV on average 1-5 times/month. Most patients used RPV to monitor their kidney function, 81 % to check creatinine levels, 57 % to check potassium results. Ninety-two percent of patients found RPV easy to use and 93 % felt that overall the system helps them in taking care of their condition; 53 % of patients reported high satisfaction with RPV. CONCLUSION: Our results provide interesting insight into use of a system that gives patients web-based access to laboratory results. The fact that 20 % of patients delegate access to relatives also warrants further study. We propose that online access to laboratory results should be offered to all renal patients, although clinicians need to be mindful of the 'digital divide', i.e. part of the population that is not amenable to IT-based strategies for patient empowerment.
Authors: Kristine L Funk; Victor J Stevens; Lawrence J Appel; Alan Bauck; Phillip J Brantley; Catherine M Champagne; Janelle Coughlin; Arlene T Dalcin; Jean Harvey-Berino; Jack F Hollis; Gerald J Jerome; Betty M Kennedy; Lillian F Lien; Valerie H Myers; Carmen Samuel-Hodge; Laura P Svetkey; William M Vollmer Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2010-07-27 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Kendra L Schwartz; Thomas Roe; Justin Northrup; James Meza; Raouf Seifeldin; Anne Victoria Neale Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2006 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Christine W Hartmann; Christopher N Sciamanna; Danielle C Blanch; Sarah Mui; Heather Lawless; Michael Manocchia; Rochelle K Rosen; Anthony Pietropaoli Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2007-02-07 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Andrew Georgiou; Julie Li; Judith Thomas; Maria R Dahm; Johanna I Westbrook Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 4.497