Cynthia A Prows1, Keith Marsolo2, Melanie F Myers3, Jeremy Nix4, Eric S Hall4. 1. Divisions of Human Genetics and Patient Services, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, United States. 2. Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States. 3. Division of Human Genetics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center; College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, United States. 4. Division of Biomedical Informatics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, United States.
Abstract
Background: We offered adolescents personalized choices about the type of genetic results they wanted to learn during a research study and created a workflow to filter and transfer the results to the electronic health record (EHR). Methods: We describe adaptations needed to ensure that adolescents' results documented in the EHR and returned to adolescent/parent dyads matched their choices. A web application enabled manual modification of the underlying laboratory report data based on adolescents' choices. The final PDF format of the laboratory reports was not viewable through the EHR patient portal, so an EHR form was created to support the manual entry of discrete results that could be viewed in the portal. Results: Enabling adolescents' choices about genetic results was a labor-intensive process. More than 350 hours was required for development of the application and EHR form, as well as over 50 hours of a study professional's time to enter choices into the application and EHR. Adolescents and their parents who learned genetic results through the patient portal indicated that they were satisfied with the method of return and would make their choices again if given the option. Conclusion: Although future EHR upgrades are expected to enable patient portal access to PDFs, additional improvements are needed to allow the results to be partitioned and filtered based on patient preferences. Furthermore, separating these results into more discrete components will allow them to be stored separately in the EHR, supporting the use of these data in clinical decision support or artificial intelligence applications.
Background: We offered adolescents personalized choices about the type of genetic results they wanted to learn during a research study and created a workflow to filter and transfer the results to the electronic health record (EHR). Methods: We describe adaptations needed to ensure that adolescents' results documented in the EHR and returned to adolescent/parent dyads matched their choices. A web application enabled manual modification of the underlying laboratory report data based on adolescents' choices. The final PDF format of the laboratory reports was not viewable through the EHR patient portal, so an EHR form was created to support the manual entry of discrete results that could be viewed in the portal. Results: Enabling adolescents' choices about genetic results was a labor-intensive process. More than 350 hours was required for development of the application and EHR form, as well as over 50 hours of a study professional's time to enter choices into the application and EHR. Adolescents and their parents who learned genetic results through the patient portal indicated that they were satisfied with the method of return and would make their choices again if given the option. Conclusion: Although future EHR upgrades are expected to enable patient portal access to PDFs, additional improvements are needed to allow the results to be partitioned and filtered based on patient preferences. Furthermore, separating these results into more discrete components will allow them to be stored separately in the EHR, supporting the use of these data in clinical decision support or artificial intelligence applications.
Entities:
Keywords:
clinical information systems; electronic health records and systems; facilitators and barriers; general aspects; implementation and deployment; patient records; specific types
Authors: Daniel R Masys; Gail P Jarvik; Neil F Abernethy; Nicholas R Anderson; George J Papanicolaou; Dina N Paltoo; Mark A Hoffman; Isaac S Kohane; Howard P Levy Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2011-12-27 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Sarah S Kalia; Kathy Adelman; Sherri J Bale; Wendy K Chung; Christine Eng; James P Evans; Gail E Herman; Sophia B Hufnagel; Teri E Klein; Bruce R Korf; Kent D McKelvey; Kelly E Ormond; C Sue Richards; Christopher N Vlangos; Michael Watson; Christa L Martin; David T Miller Journal: Genet Med Date: 2016-11-17 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Christin Hoell; Julia Wynn; Luke V Rasmussen; Keith Marsolo; Sharon A Aufox; Wendy K Chung; John J Connolly; Robert R Freimuth; David Kochan; Hakon Hakonarson; Margaret Harr; Ingrid A Holm; Iftikhar J Kullo; Philip E Lammers; Kathleen A Leppig; Nancy D Leslie; Melanie F Myers; Richard R Sharp; Maureen E Smith; Cynthia A Prows Journal: Genet Med Date: 2020-07-16 Impact factor: 8.864
Authors: Marc S Williams; Casey Overby Taylor; Nephi A Walton; Scott R Goehringer; Samuel Aronson; Robert R Freimuth; Luke V Rasmussen; Eric S Hall; Cynthia A Prows; Wendy K Chung; Alexander Fedotov; Jordan Nestor; Chunhua Weng; Robb K Rowley; Georgia L Wiesner; Gail P Jarvik; Guilherme Del Fiol Journal: Front Genet Date: 2019-10-29 Impact factor: 4.599
Authors: Lauge Farnaes; Amber Hildreth; Nathaly M Sweeney; Michelle M Clark; Shimul Chowdhury; Shareef Nahas; Julie A Cakici; Wendy Benson; Robert H Kaplan; Richard Kronick; Matthew N Bainbridge; Jennifer Friedman; Jeffrey J Gold; Yan Ding; Narayanan Veeraraghavan; David Dimmock; Stephen F Kingsmore Journal: NPJ Genom Med Date: 2018-04-04 Impact factor: 8.617