Literature DB >> 25480720

Provider responses to patients controlling access to their electronic health records: a prospective cohort study in primary care.

William M Tierney1, Sheri A Alpert, Amy Byrket, Kelly Caine, Jeremy C Leventhal, Eric M Meslin, Peter H Schwartz.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Applying Fair Information Practice principles to electronic health records (EHRs) requires allowing patient control over who views their data.
METHODS: We designed a program that captures patients' preferences for provider access to an urban health system's EHR. Patients could allow or restrict providers' access to all data (diagnoses, medications, test results, reports, etc.) or only highly sensitive data (sexually transmitted infections, HIV/AIDS, drugs/alcohol, mental or reproductive health). Except for information in free-text reports, we redacted EHR data shown to providers according to patients' preferences. Providers could "break the glass" to display redacted information. We prospectively studied this system in one primary care clinic, noting redactions and when users "broke the glass," and surveyed providers about their experiences and opinions.
RESULTS: Eight of nine eligible clinic physicians and all 23 clinic staff participated. All 105 patients who enrolled completed the preference program. Providers did not know which of their patients were enrolled, nor their preferences for accessing their EHRs. During the 6-month prospective study, 92 study patients (88 %) returned 261 times, during which providers viewed their EHRs 126 times (48 %). Providers "broke the glass" 102 times, 92 times for patients not in the study and ten times for six returning study patients, all of whom had restricted EHR access. Providers "broke the glass" for six (14 %) of 43 returning study patients with redacted data vs. zero among 49 study patients without redactions (p = 0.01). Although 54 % of providers agreed that patients should have control over who sees their EHR information, 58 % believed restricting EHR access could harm provider-patient relationships and 71 % felt quality of care would suffer.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients frequently preferred restricting provider access to their EHRs. Providers infrequently overrode patients' preferences to view hidden data. Providers believed that restricting EHR access would adversely impact patient care. Applying Fair Information Practice principles to EHRs will require balancing patient preferences, providers' needs, and health care quality.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25480720      PMCID: PMC4265224          DOI: 10.1007/s11606-014-3053-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  25 in total

1.  Ghost charts and shadow records: implication for system design.

Authors:  Ellen Balka
Journal:  Stud Health Technol Inform       Date:  2010

2.  Should patients be able to control their own records?

Authors:  Peter Davies
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2012-07-30

3.  The 'chagrin factor' and qualitative decision analysis.

Authors:  A R Feinstein
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1985-07

4.  Healthcare in a land called PeoplePower: nothing about me without me.

Authors:  T Delbanco; D M Berwick; J I Boufford; S Edgman-Levitan; G Ollenschläger; D Plamping; R G Rockefeller
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 3.377

5.  The Indiana network for patient care: an integrated clinical information system informed by over thirty years of experience.

Authors:  Paul G Biondich; Shaun J Grannis
Journal:  J Public Health Manag Pract       Date:  2004-11

6.  Paper- and computer-based workarounds to electronic health record use at three benchmark institutions.

Authors:  Mindy E Flanagan; Jason J Saleem; Laura G Millitello; Alissa L Russ; Bradley N Doebbeling
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2013-03-14       Impact factor: 4.497

7.  The double-edged sword of electronic health records: implications for patient disclosure.

Authors:  Celeste Campos-Castillo; Denise L Anthony
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2014-07-24       Impact factor: 4.497

8.  Giving patients granular control of personal health information: using an ethics 'Points to Consider' to inform informatics system designers.

Authors:  Eric M Meslin; Sheri A Alpert; Aaron E Carroll; Jere D Odell; William M Tierney; Peter H Schwartz
Journal:  Int J Med Inform       Date:  2013-09-04       Impact factor: 4.046

9.  Regenstrief Institute's Medical Gopher: a next-generation homegrown electronic medical record system.

Authors:  Jon D Duke; Justin Morea; Burke Mamlin; Douglas K Martin; Linas Simonaitis; Blaine Y Takesue; Brian E Dixon; Paul R Dexter
Journal:  Int J Med Inform       Date:  2013-12-14       Impact factor: 4.046

10.  Privacy protectionism and health information: is there any redress for harms to health?

Authors:  Judy Allen; C D'arcy J Holman; Eric M Meslin; Fiona Stanley
Journal:  J Law Med       Date:  2013-12
View more
  15 in total

Review 1.  Family Caregivers and Consumer Health Information Technology.

Authors:  Jennifer L Wolff; Jonathan D Darer; Kevin L Larsen
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-08-27       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  You, me, and the computer makes three: navigating the doctor-patient relationship in the age of electronic health records.

Authors:  Adam Wright
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  State of the art and a mixed-method personalized approach to assess patient perceptions on medical record sharing and sensitivity.

Authors:  Hiral Soni; Adela Grando; Anita Murcko; Sabrina Diaz; Madhumita Mukundan; Nassim Idouraine; George Karway; Michael Todd; Darwyn Chern; Christy Dye; Mary Jo Whitfield
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2019-11-11       Impact factor: 6.317

4.  Capturing the patients' voices: Planning for patient-centered electronic health record use.

Authors:  Onur Asan; Jeanne Tyszka; Kathlyn E Fletcher
Journal:  Int J Med Inform       Date:  2016-08-12       Impact factor: 4.046

5.  Patient preferences in controlling access to their electronic health records: a prospective cohort study in primary care.

Authors:  Peter H Schwartz; Kelly Caine; Sheri A Alpert; Eric M Meslin; Aaron E Carroll; William M Tierney
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Point and counterpoint: patient control of access to data in their electronic health records.

Authors:  Kelly Caine; William M Tierney
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Patients' Online Access to Their Primary Care Electronic Health Records and Linked Online Services: Implications for Research and Practice.

Authors:  Freda Mold; Simon de Lusignan
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2015-12-04

8.  Factors affecting willingness to share electronic health data among California consumers.

Authors:  Katherine K Kim; Pamela Sankar; Machelle D Wilson; Sarah C Haynes
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 2.652

Review 9.  Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues Related to the Inclusion of Individuals With Intellectual Disabilities in Electronic Health Record Research: Scoping Review.

Authors:  Melissa Raspa; Rebecca Moultrie; Laura Wagner; Anne Edwards; Sara Andrews; Mary Katherine Frisch; Lauren Turner-Brown; Anne Wheeler
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2020-05-21       Impact factor: 5.428

10.  Developing a Shared Patient-Centered, Web-Based Medication Platform for Type 2 Diabetes Patients and Their Health Care Providers: Qualitative Study on User Requirements.

Authors:  Gerda Bernhard; Cornelia Mahler; Hanna Marita Seidling; Marion Stützle; Dominik Ose; Ines Baudendistel; Michel Wensing; Joachim Szecsenyi
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2018-03-27       Impact factor: 5.428

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.