Ann Scheck McAlearney1,2,3,4, Alice Gaughan2, Sarah R MacEwan2, Naleef Fareed2,3, Timothy R Huerta1,2,3,4. 1. Department of Family Medicine, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 2. CATALYST, Center for the Advancement of Team Science, Analytics, and Systems Thinking, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 3. Department of Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 4. Division of Health Services Management and Policy, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Abstract
Background: Inpatient portals are gaining interest as a means to increase patient-centered care during hospitalization. However, acceptance of a new technology such as the inpatient portal relies on perceptions of both its usefulness and ease of use. These factors have not been studied in the context of inpatient portal implementation. Methods: We interviewed patients (n = 123) and care team members (n = 447) about their experiences using an inpatient portal that had been implemented across a large, academic medical center. Interviews lasted 5-15 min, were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and then analyzed using a combination of deductive and inductive methods. Results: Collectively, interviewees reported that the inpatient portal was a useful tool as it improved patients' access to information, enhanced communication, facilitated education, and appeared to promote patients' sense of control while in the hospital. Most interviewees also found the technology easy to use. However, there were concerns that the portal was not easy to use for those less experienced with technology. Interviewees identified the need to emphasize the value of the technology to both patients and care team members and the need to provide additional training to support portal use, as ways to promote acceptance of the tool. Discussion and Conclusions: Inpatient portals can improve patient-centered care, but such improvements require acceptance of the tool by both patients and care team members. Our findings about the usefulness and ease of use of an inpatient portal can inform future efforts to improve the implementation and acceptance of this new technology.
Background: Inpatient portals are gaining interest as a means to increase patient-centered care during hospitalization. However, acceptance of a new technology such as the inpatient portal relies on perceptions of both its usefulness and ease of use. These factors have not been studied in the context of inpatient portal implementation. Methods: We interviewed patients (n = 123) and care team members (n = 447) about their experiences using an inpatient portal that had been implemented across a large, academic medical center. Interviews lasted 5-15 min, were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and then analyzed using a combination of deductive and inductive methods. Results: Collectively, interviewees reported that the inpatient portal was a useful tool as it improved patients' access to information, enhanced communication, facilitated education, and appeared to promote patients' sense of control while in the hospital. Most interviewees also found the technology easy to use. However, there were concerns that the portal was not easy to use for those less experienced with technology. Interviewees identified the need to emphasize the value of the technology to both patients and care team members and the need to provide additional training to support portal use, as ways to promote acceptance of the tool. Discussion and Conclusions: Inpatient portals can improve patient-centered care, but such improvements require acceptance of the tool by both patients and care team members. Our findings about the usefulness and ease of use of an inpatient portal can inform future efforts to improve the implementation and acceptance of this new technology.
Entities:
Keywords:
hospitalization; patient portals; patient-centered care; technology acceptance model
Authors: Terese Otte-Trojel; Antoinette de Bont; Thomas G Rundall; Joris van de Klundert Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-09-02 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Allison J Lazard; Ivan Watkins; Michael S Mackert; Bo Xie; Keri K Stephens; Heidi Shalev Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-12-03 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Sue Peacock; Ashok Reddy; Suzanne G Leveille; Jan Walker; Thomas H Payne; Natalia V Oster; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Timothy Huerta; Naleef Fareed; Jennifer L Hefner; Cynthia J Sieck; Christine Swoboda; Robert Taylor; Ann Scheck McAlearney Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-03-25 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Daniel M Walker; Alice Gaughan; Naleef Fareed; Susan Moffatt-Bruce; Ann Scheck McAlearney Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-11-27 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Christine M Swoboda; Matthew J DePuccio; Naleef Fareed; Ann Scheck McAlearney; Daniel M Walker Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2021-07-07 Impact factor: 2.762