Peter L T Hoonakker1, Rebecca J Rankin2, Jennifer C Passini3, Jenny A Bunton4, Bradley D Ehlenfeldt4, Shannon M Dean3, Anne S Thurber3, Michelle M Kelly3. 1. Center for Quality and Productivity Improvement, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States. 2. Department of Nursing, Nursing Informatics, University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics, Madison, Wisconsin, United States. 3. Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics, Madison, Wisconsin, United States. 4. Department of Health Information Services, University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics, Madison, Wisconsin, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient portals are intended to engage patients and enhance patient-centered care. Recent studies suggest that the information within portals could provide benefits to patients and their caregivers during hospitalization; however, few studies have examined nurse and staff expectations of portals when used in the hospital setting. OBJECTIVE: This article examines inpatient nurse and support staff expectations of a commercially available inpatient portal prior to its hospital-wide implementation. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, nurses and support staff were surveyed 1 month prior to the implementation of an inpatient portal for patients. Items included respondent characteristics, satisfaction with online inpatient portal training, expectations of the effects of portal use on patients, caregivers, and staff, overall acceptance, and barriers to its implementation. RESULTS: Of 881 respondents, 73.0% were staff nurses, 18.4% nurse assistants, 4.3% unit coordinators, and 1.2% nurse managers. Respondents were generally satisfied with the portal information they received from online training. A majority liked the portal to some extent prior to its use (66.7%); however, they noted multiple implementation barriers, including: tablets would get lost/damaged (66.2% of respondents), patients and/or caregivers would have too many questions (48.5%), and staff would have problems integrating it into their workflow (44.7%). Respondents working on medical units had higher expectations (p < 0.001) and acceptance (p < 0.01) of the portal than those on surgical and intensive care units. Nurse managers were more positive than respondents with other job roles were (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Overall, nurse and support staff had high expectations of the effects of inpatient portal use prior to its hospital-wide implementation. They thought it would benefit patients and/or their caregivers; however, they also perceived several barriers to its implementation. These results will be used in conjunction with patient and caregiver perspectives to inform future efforts to evaluate and improve upon inpatient portal implementation and dissemination across health systems. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
BACKGROUND:Patient portals are intended to engage patients and enhance patient-centered care. Recent studies suggest that the information within portals could provide benefits to patients and their caregivers during hospitalization; however, few studies have examined nurse and staff expectations of portals when used in the hospital setting. OBJECTIVE: This article examines inpatient nurse and support staff expectations of a commercially available inpatient portal prior to its hospital-wide implementation. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, nurses and support staff were surveyed 1 month prior to the implementation of an inpatient portal for patients. Items included respondent characteristics, satisfaction with online inpatient portal training, expectations of the effects of portal use on patients, caregivers, and staff, overall acceptance, and barriers to its implementation. RESULTS: Of 881 respondents, 73.0% were staff nurses, 18.4% nurse assistants, 4.3% unit coordinators, and 1.2% nurse managers. Respondents were generally satisfied with the portal information they received from online training. A majority liked the portal to some extent prior to its use (66.7%); however, they noted multiple implementation barriers, including: tablets would get lost/damaged (66.2% of respondents), patients and/or caregivers would have too many questions (48.5%), and staff would have problems integrating it into their workflow (44.7%). Respondents working on medical units had higher expectations (p < 0.001) and acceptance (p < 0.01) of the portal than those on surgical and intensive care units. Nurse managers were more positive than respondents with other job roles were (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Overall, nurse and support staff had high expectations of the effects of inpatient portal use prior to its hospital-wide implementation. They thought it would benefit patients and/or their caregivers; however, they also perceived several barriers to its implementation. These results will be used in conjunction with patient and caregiver perspectives to inform future efforts to evaluate and improve upon inpatient portal implementation and dissemination across health systems. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
Authors: Pascale Carayon; Randi Cartmill; Mary Ann Blosky; Roger Brown; Matthew Hackenberg; Peter Hoonakker; Ann Schoofs Hundt; Evan Norfolk; Tosha B Wetterneck; James M Walker Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-06-22 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Elizabeth D Cox; Pascale Carayon; Kristofer W Hansen; Victoria P Rajamanickam; Roger L Brown; Paul J Rathouz; Lori L DuBenske; Michelle M Kelly; Linda A Buel Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2013-03-29 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Patricia C Dykes; Diane L Carroll; Ann C Hurley; Angela Benoit; Frank Chang; Rachel Pozzar; Christine A Caligtan Journal: J Gerontol Nurs Date: 2012-12-13 Impact factor: 1.254
Authors: Jolie N Haun; Jason D Lind; Stephanie L Shimada; Tracey L Martin; Robert M Gosline; Nicole Antinori; Max Stewart; Steven R Simon Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2014-03-06 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: Alice A Gaughan; Daniel M Walker; Lindsey N Sova; Shonda Vink; Susan D Moffatt-Bruce; Ann Scheck McAlearney Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2022-04-13 Impact factor: 2.342