0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Research Letter |

Patient Access to Electronic Health Records During Hospitalization FREE

Jonathan Michael Pell, MD1; Mary Mancuso, MA2; Shelly Limon, BSN, MS, CNRN3; Kathy Oman, RN, PhD4; Chen-Tan Lin, MD1,5
[+] Author Affiliations
1Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora
2Professional Resources, University of Colorado Hospital, Aurora
3Neuroscience Unit, University of Colorado Hospital, Aurora
4College of Nursing, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora
5Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Colorado Health, Aurora
JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(5):856-858. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.121.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

In 2001, the Institute of Medicine1 recommended improving patient engagement by providing continuous care, allowing patients to be the source of control and fostering transparency with patients and families. Electronic health records (EHRs) facilitate these objectives via the use of patient portals.2 Giving outpatients direct access to their health information helps clinicians find errors and improves patient satisfaction, although the implications of this type of access have not been well studied in the inpatient setting.35 This hospital-based study evaluates the experiences of patients, clinicians (including physicians and advanced practice providers), and nurses with immediate (real-time) release of test results and other EHR information through a patient portal.

This prospective cohort study was performed on a medical unit of the University of Colorado Hospital, Aurora, a 412-bed academic tertiary care hospital, from October 1, 2012, through March 31, 2013. Approval was obtained from the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board and the University of Colorado Hospital Research Review Committee. Participants provided oral informed consent, and all data were deidentified. Participants included hospital clinicians, nurses, and patients. Patient participants were enrolled by convenience sampling and used a study-provided electronic tablet to access parts of their EHR, including the medication schedule and test results (intervention). Patients, clinicians, and nurses completed surveys before and after the intervention. The survey evaluated the domains of caregiver workload, patient confusion and worry, patient empowerment, errors detected, and discharge planning. We performed the McNemar test to analyze binary data between paired responses on surveys for all 3 groups.

Participants completing the preintervention and postintervention surveys included all 50 patients (response rate, 100%), 28 of 30 clinicians (response rate, 93%), and 14 of 16 nurses (response rate, 88%). Demographics and baseline opinions about technology are shown in Table 1. Mean patient portal use was 15.6 (SD, 16.2; median, 11.2; range, 0.3-86.8) clicks per day, and time logged on ranged from 2 to 1331 minutes. We did not assess the use of the tablet for other purposes or by other users. Table 2 shows the preintervention and postintervention survey results. Thirty-three of 42 clinicians and nurses (79%) were concerned that giving patients immediate access to their test results would increase their workload, but this sentiment decreased in both groups after the intervention. Concerns that seeing test results would cause patient worry were high among clinicians and nurses (24 of 28 [86%] and 13 of 14 [93%], respectively) and greater than among patients before the intervention, but these concerns decreased in all groups. Most patients endorsed empowerment items, including control, understanding, reassurance, and following recommendations both before and after the intervention.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1.  Patient, Clinician, and Nurse Demographics
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2.  Preintervention and Postintervention Survey Results for Patients, Clinicians, and Nurses

Clinicians (25 of 26 [96%]) and nurses (13 of 14 [93%]) were more optimistic than patients (22 of 50 [44%]) that patient access to their medication lists would help them find errors, and this optimism decreased significantly across all groups after the intervention (patients, 3 of 50 [−38%; P < .001]; clinicians, 17 of 26 [−31%; P = .008]; and nurses, 7 of 14 [−43%; P = .03]). Before the intervention, 33 of 49 patients (67%) indicated that they would better understand when they would be discharged; after the intervention, the number of patients endorsing this item fell significantly (to 12 of 49 [−43%; P < .001]).

The suspected risks of giving inpatients direct access to their EHR did not bear out, with no increase in workload reported by the nurses or the clinicians and no increase in confusion or worry reported by the patients. Consistent with outpatient studies, patients answered more positively to empowerment questions after being given EHR access. Despite supporting patient empowerment, the promise of patients finding errors in their medications or knowing when they were being discharged never materialized. This study is, to our knowledge, the first published evaluation of the experience of a large sample of inpatients and their frontline health care practitioners with real-time inpatient EHR access, although it involved patients and practitioners on a single hospital unit. Federal programs recommend that patients be able to access results from their hospitalization within 36 hours of discharge.6 Based on our results, we believe that this requirement still misses an opportunity for patient engagement through better transparency, and future policies should consider real-time EHR access for inpatients.

Corresponding Author: Jonathan Michael Pell, MD, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, 12401 E 17th Ave, Mail Stop F782, Aurora, CO 80045 (jonathan.pell@ucdenver.edu).

Published Online: March 9, 2015. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.121.

Author Contributions: Dr Pell had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Pell, Limon, Lin.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Pell, Mancuso, Oman, Lin.

Drafting of the manuscript: Pell, Mancuso, Oman, Lin.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Pell, Mancuso, Oman, Lin.

Obtained funding: Pell.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Pell, Mancuso, Lin.

Study supervision: Pell, Lin.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by the University of Colorado Hospital Clinical Effectiveness and Patient Safety Small Grants Program.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding source had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Additional Contributions: Esther Langmack, MD, CCMEP, Division of Pulmonary Sciences and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, provided editorial assistance in preparing the manuscript. Carl Miller, MA, Patient and Family Centered Care, University of Colorado Hospital, informed the project from a patient perspective, and Alice Pekarek RN, BSN, Clinical Informatics, University of Colorado Health, provided the nursing informatics perspective. None of these contributors received compensation for their roles.

Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the Twenty-first Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001.
White  A, Danis  M.  Enhancing patient-centered communication and collaboration by using the electronic health record in the examination room. JAMA. 2013;309(22):2327-2328.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Weitzman  ER, Kaci  L, Mandl  KD.  Acceptability of a personally controlled health record in a community-based setting: implications for policy and design. J Med Internet Res. 2009;11(2):e14.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Earnest  MA, Ross  SE, Wittevrongel  L, Moore  LA, Lin  CT.  Use of a patient-accessible electronic medical record in a practice for congestive heart failure: patient and physician experiences. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004;11(5):410-417.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Greysen  SR, Khanna  RR, Jacolbia  R, Lee  HM, Auerbach  AD.  Tablet computers for hospitalized patients: a pilot study to improve inpatient engagement. J Hosp Med. 2014;9(6):396-399.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Eligible hospital and critical access: hospital meaningful use core measures: measure 6 of 16: stage 2. http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/downloads/Stage2_HospitalCore_6_PatientElectronicAccess.pdf. Published August 2014. Accessed January 29, 2015.

Figures

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1.  Patient, Clinician, and Nurse Demographics
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2.  Preintervention and Postintervention Survey Results for Patients, Clinicians, and Nurses

References

Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the Twenty-first Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001.
White  A, Danis  M.  Enhancing patient-centered communication and collaboration by using the electronic health record in the examination room. JAMA. 2013;309(22):2327-2328.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Weitzman  ER, Kaci  L, Mandl  KD.  Acceptability of a personally controlled health record in a community-based setting: implications for policy and design. J Med Internet Res. 2009;11(2):e14.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Earnest  MA, Ross  SE, Wittevrongel  L, Moore  LA, Lin  CT.  Use of a patient-accessible electronic medical record in a practice for congestive heart failure: patient and physician experiences. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004;11(5):410-417.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Greysen  SR, Khanna  RR, Jacolbia  R, Lee  HM, Auerbach  AD.  Tablet computers for hospitalized patients: a pilot study to improve inpatient engagement. J Hosp Med. 2014;9(6):396-399.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Eligible hospital and critical access: hospital meaningful use core measures: measure 6 of 16: stage 2. http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/downloads/Stage2_HospitalCore_6_PatientElectronicAccess.pdf. Published August 2014. Accessed January 29, 2015.

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment
Immediate patient access to current medical records, not via \"portal\"
Posted on March 9, 2015
David L Keller, MD
Independent
Conflict of Interest: None Declared
All patients need and deserve immediate access to all physician consultation reports and clinical data, including labs, imaging and pathology results, as well as real-time scrutiny of physician orders, including the names and dosages of all medications being administered, and the progress notes written by all clinicians. This is not just an optional courtesy, nor is it a privilege to be granted at the whim of a healthcare provider, this is a right. The patient owns their healthcare information, and should never have to wait for their doctor to review results and sign off before releasing them, as with patient portals. If you want to see results before you patients do, then you need to work faster.  
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

1,974 Views
3 Citations
×

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Jobs