Dan Henshaw1, Grant Okawa1, Karen Ching1, Terhilda Garrido2, Heather Qian3, Joanne Tsai2. 1. Hawaii Permanente Medical Group, Honolulu, Hawaii. 2. Health Information Technology & Transformation Analytics, Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, California. 3. Health Information Technology & Transformation Analytics, Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, California. Electronic address: Heather.H.Qian@kp.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Few organizations have reported providing radiology reports to patients via an electronic health record patient portal. The authors describe the process of manual release of reports made by referring physicians, and patients' and referring physicians' experiences during the first year that release through the portal was available. METHODS: A survey of 508 patients assessed perceived accessibility and importance of portal-released radiology reports, and communications with referring physicians before and after the release. A survey of 48 referring physicians and a group interview assessed the utility of releasing reports, preferences regarding automatic release, and workload impact. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative methods. RESULTS: A total of 74% (377) of patients found reports easy to access, and 88% (446) reported that the ability to do so was important. In all, 49% (250) of patients were contacted by their referring physician before report release, and 25% (156) contacted their physician for more information after viewing a report. Of the referring physicians, 88% (42) found that releasing reports to patients was useful. Auto-release of x-ray reports, with a 1-week delay, was preferred by 58% (28), but they were more reluctant to auto-release CT and MRI reports. A total of 86% (41) of referring physicians reported that follow-up emails, telephone calls, and office visits were unchanged or had decreased. CONCLUSIONS: Referring-physician release of radiology reports via the online portal is important to patients, useful to referring physicians, and does not affect referring-physician workloads. A delay between reporting results to referring physicians and releasing them to patients allows time for needed physician-patient communication.
PURPOSE: Few organizations have reported providing radiology reports to patients via an electronic health record patient portal. The authors describe the process of manual release of reports made by referring physicians, and patients' and referring physicians' experiences during the first year that release through the portal was available. METHODS: A survey of 508 patients assessed perceived accessibility and importance of portal-released radiology reports, and communications with referring physicians before and after the release. A survey of 48 referring physicians and a group interview assessed the utility of releasing reports, preferences regarding automatic release, and workload impact. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative methods. RESULTS: A total of 74% (377) of patients found reports easy to access, and 88% (446) reported that the ability to do so was important. In all, 49% (250) of patients were contacted by their referring physician before report release, and 25% (156) contacted their physician for more information after viewing a report. Of the referring physicians, 88% (42) found that releasing reports to patients was useful. Auto-release of x-ray reports, with a 1-week delay, was preferred by 58% (28), but they were more reluctant to auto-release CT and MRI reports. A total of 86% (41) of referring physicians reported that follow-up emails, telephone calls, and office visits were unchanged or had decreased. CONCLUSIONS: Referring-physician release of radiology reports via the online portal is important to patients, useful to referring physicians, and does not affect referring-physician workloads. A delay between reporting results to referring physicians and releasing them to patients allows time for needed physician-patient communication.
Authors: Matthew K Hong; Clayton Feustel; Meeshu Agnihotri; Max Silverman; Stephen F Simoneaux; Lauren Wilcox Journal: Proc SIGCHI Conf Hum Factor Comput Syst Date: 2017-05-02
Authors: Hailey H Choi; Amy L Kotsenas; Joshua Vic Chen; Christina Bronsky; Christopher J Roth; Marc D Kohli Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2022-01-12 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Akhil Dhamija; Jay A Moskovitz; Juli Bick; Timothy J OConnor; Jennifer Regan; Laurie A Perry; David Hulefeld; Eric Schwieterman; Evan Slavik; Alexander J Towbin Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2020-12-02 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Mohammad Alarifi; Timothy Patrick; Abdulrahman Jabour; Min Wu; Jake Luo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-05-22 Impact factor: 3.390
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