Joy L Lee1,2, Claire E Williams3, Sean Baird3, Marianne S Matthias4,3,5,6, Michael Weiner4,3,6. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, 1101 W. 10th St., Indianapolis, IN, 46151, USA. joyllee@iu.edu. 2. Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA. joyllee@iu.edu. 3. Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA. 4. Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, 1101 W. 10th St., Indianapolis, IN, 46151, USA. 5. Department of Communication Studies, Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 6. Center for Health Information and Communication, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Health Services Research and Development Service CIN 13-416, Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient portals present the opportunity to expand patients' access to their clinicians and health information. Yet patients and clinicians have expressed the need for more guidance on portal and secure messaging procedures to avoid misuse. Little information is currently available concerning whether and how expectations of portal and messaging usage are communicated to patients. OBJECTIVE: To identify the information made available to patients about patient portal use, and to assess ease in accessing such information. DESIGN: A national survey of publicly available portal information from hospital websites. The study team followed up with phone calls to each hospital to request any additional patient-directed materials (e.g., pamphlets) not located in the web search. PARTICIPANTS: A random sample of 200 acute-care hospitals, 50 from each of four US Census regions, selected from the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Hospital Compare dataset. MAIN MEASURES: Availability of patient portals, secure messaging, and related functionality; the content and ease of access to patient-directed information about portals. KEY RESULTS: Of the hospitals sampled, 177 (89%) had a patient portal; 116 (66%) of these included secure messaging functionality. Most portals with secure messaging (N = 65, 58%) did not describe appropriate patient messaging conduct. Although many included disclaimers that the service is not for emergencies, 23 hospitals only included this within the fine prints of their "Terms and Conditions" section. Content analysis of additional patient-directed materials revealed a focus on logistical content, features of the portals, and parameters of use. Of the three categories, logistical content (e.g., creating an account) was the most thorough. CONCLUSIONS: Although most of the sampled hospitals had patient portals, many fail to educate patients fully and set expectations for secure messaging. To improve patient engagement and minimize harm, hospitals and clinicians need to provide more information and set clearer guidelines for patients.
BACKGROUND:Patient portals present the opportunity to expand patients' access to their clinicians and health information. Yet patients and clinicians have expressed the need for more guidance on portal and secure messaging procedures to avoid misuse. Little information is currently available concerning whether and how expectations of portal and messaging usage are communicated to patients. OBJECTIVE: To identify the information made available to patients about patient portal use, and to assess ease in accessing such information. DESIGN: A national survey of publicly available portal information from hospital websites. The study team followed up with phone calls to each hospital to request any additional patient-directed materials (e.g., pamphlets) not located in the web search. PARTICIPANTS: A random sample of 200 acute-care hospitals, 50 from each of four US Census regions, selected from the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Hospital Compare dataset. MAIN MEASURES: Availability of patient portals, secure messaging, and related functionality; the content and ease of access to patient-directed information about portals. KEY RESULTS: Of the hospitals sampled, 177 (89%) had a patient portal; 116 (66%) of these included secure messaging functionality. Most portals with secure messaging (N = 65, 58%) did not describe appropriate patient messaging conduct. Although many included disclaimers that the service is not for emergencies, 23 hospitals only included this within the fine prints of their "Terms and Conditions" section. Content analysis of additional patient-directed materials revealed a focus on logistical content, features of the portals, and parameters of use. Of the three categories, logistical content (e.g., creating an account) was the most thorough. CONCLUSIONS: Although most of the sampled hospitals had patient portals, many fail to educate patients fully and set expectations for secure messaging. To improve patient engagement and minimize harm, hospitals and clinicians need to provide more information and set clearer guidelines for patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
electronic health record; informatics; patient portals; patient provider communication
Authors: Chandra Y Osborn; S Trent Rosenbloom; Shane P Stenner; Shilo Anders; Sue Muse; Kevin B Johnson; Jim Jirjis; Gretchen Purcell Jackson Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-07-31 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Mary E Reed; Jie Huang; Andrea Millman; Ilana Graetz; John Hsu; Richard Brand; Dustin W Ballard; Richard Grant Journal: Med Care Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Joy L Lee; Marianne S Matthias; Nir Menachemi; Richard M Frankel; Michael Weiner Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Caroline Lubick Goldzweig; Greg Orshansky; Neil M Paige; Ali Alexander Towfigh; David A Haggstrom; Isomi Miake-Lye; Jessica M Beroes; Paul G Shekelle Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-11-19 Impact factor: 25.391
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: Stephanie L Shimada; Jeroan J Allison; Amy K Rosen; Hua Feng; Thomas K Houston Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Cynthia J Sieck; Jennifer L Hefner; Jeanette Schnierle; Hannah Florian; Aradhna Agarwal; Kristen Rundell; Ann Scheck McAlearney Journal: JMIR Med Inform Date: 2017-07-04
Authors: Anuj K Dalal; Nicholas Piniella; Theresa E Fuller; Denise Pong; Michael Pardo; Nathaniel Bessa; Catherine Yoon; Stuart Lipsitz; Jeffrey L Schnipper Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-03-18 Impact factor: 4.497