Jessica S Ancker1, Elizabeth Mauer1, Robin B Kalish2, Joshua R Vest3, J Travis Gossey1,4,5. 1. Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, United States. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, United States. 3. Department of Health Policy and Management, Indiana University Richard M. Fairbanks School of Health, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States. 4. Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, United States. 5. Weill Cornell Physician Organization Information Services, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Patient-generated health data (PGHD) may help providers monitor patient status between clinical visits. Our objective was to describe our medical center's early experience with an electronic flowsheet allowing patients to upload self-monitored blood glucose to their provider's electronic health record (EHR). METHODS: An academic multispecialty practice enabled the portal-linked PGHD tool in 2012. We conducted a retrospective observational study of adult ambulatory patients using this tool between 2012 and 2016, comparing clinical and demographic characteristics of data uploaders with those of a group of patients with diabetes diagnoses and patient portal accounts seen by the same health care providers. RESULTS: Over four years, 16 providers chose to use the tool, and 53 adult patients used it to upload three or more blood glucose values within any 9-month period. Of these patients, 23 were pregnant women and 30 were nonpregnant adults with diabetes. Uploaders had more encounters and portal log-ins than comparison patients but did not differ in socioeconomic status. Among the chronic disease patients, uploaders' mean hemoglobin A1c and body mass index (BMI) both dropped significantly in the months after upload. CONCLUSION: Despite the potential value of PGHD in health care, the rate of adoption of a tool allowing patients to upload PGHD to their provider's EHR has been slow. Among chronic disease patients, PGHD upload was associated with improvements in blood glucose control and BMI, but it is possible that the changes were because of increased motivation or intensive changes in medical management. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:Patient-generated health data (PGHD) may help providers monitor patient status between clinical visits. Our objective was to describe our medical center's early experience with an electronic flowsheet allowing patients to upload self-monitored blood glucose to their provider's electronic health record (EHR). METHODS: An academic multispecialty practice enabled the portal-linked PGHD tool in 2012. We conducted a retrospective observational study of adult ambulatory patients using this tool between 2012 and 2016, comparing clinical and demographic characteristics of data uploaders with those of a group of patients with diabetes diagnoses and patient portal accounts seen by the same health care providers. RESULTS: Over four years, 16 providers chose to use the tool, and 53 adult patients used it to upload three or more blood glucose values within any 9-month period. Of these patients, 23 were pregnant women and 30 were nonpregnant adults with diabetes. Uploaders had more encounters and portal log-ins than comparison patients but did not differ in socioeconomic status. Among the chronic diseasepatients, uploaders' mean hemoglobin A1c and body mass index (BMI) both dropped significantly in the months after upload. CONCLUSION: Despite the potential value of PGHD in health care, the rate of adoption of a tool allowing patients to upload PGHD to their provider's EHR has been slow. Among chronic diseasepatients, PGHD upload was associated with improvements in blood glucose control and BMI, but it is possible that the changes were because of increased motivation or intensive changes in medical management. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
Authors: Douglas W Roblin; Thomas K Houston; Jeroan J Allison; Peter J Joski; Edmund R Becker Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2009-06-30 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Jessica S Ancker; Holly O Witteman; Baria Hafeez; Thierry Provencher; Mary Van de Graaf; Esther Wei Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2015-08-19 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Daniel A Epstein; Monica Caraway; Chuck Johnston; An Ping; James Fogarty; Sean A Munson Journal: Proc SIGCHI Conf Hum Factor Comput Syst Date: 2016-05
Authors: Jennifer E Prey; Fernanda Polubriaginof; Lisa V Grossman; Ruth Masterson Creber; Demetra Tsapepas; Rimma Perotte; Min Qian; Susan Restaino; Suzanne Bakken; George Hripcsak; Leigh Efird; Joseph Underwood; David K Vawdrey Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Florian Dittrich; David Alexander Back; Anna Katharina Harren; Marcus Jäger; Stefan Landgraeber; Felix Reinecke; Sascha Beck Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2020-02-26 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Laleh G Melstrom; Andrei S Rodin; Lorenzo A Rossi; Paul Fu; Yuman Fong; Virginia Sun Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2020-09-24 Impact factor: 3.454