Impact of patient-accessible electronic medical records in rheumatology: use, satisfaction and effects on empowerment among patients

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Mart AFJ van de Laar²  Harald E Vonkeman²  K Wiepke Drossaers-Bakker²  Erik Taal¹  Constance HC Drossaert¹  Rosalie van der Vaart¹ 

[1] Department of Psychology, Health & Technology, University of Twente, Citadel H423, P.O. Box 217 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands;Arthritis Centre Twente, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands

关键词: eHealth;    Patient empowerment;    Patient access;    Web portal;    Electronic Medical Record;   

Others  :  1127811
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-15-102

 received in 2013-08-12, accepted in 2014-03-12,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

To measure the use, satisfaction and impact of a web portal which provides patients with rheumatoid arthritis home access to their electronic medical records (EMR).

Methods

A pretest-posttest study was conducted among 360 patients. Questionnaires assessed socio-demographics, health literacy, Internet use, disease characteristics, patient-provider relationship and empowerment before and after launching a hospital-based patient web portal. To measure the impact of the portal, patients’ satisfaction with care, trust in their rheumatologist, self-efficacy in patient-provider communication, illness perceptions, and medication adherence were assessed. The post-test included questions on portal use, satisfaction, and self-perceived impact due to portal use.

Results

54% of respondents with Internet access had viewed their EMR. Respondents were positive about the ease of use and usefulness of the portal and reported very few problems. Age (P = .03), amount of Internet use (P = .01) and self-perceived Internet skills (P = .03) significantly predicted portal use. Of the respondents who had logged in, 44% reported feeling more involved in their treatment and 37% felt they had more knowledge about their treatment. Significant differences over time were not found on the empowerment-related instruments.

Conclusions

The current portal succeeded in offering patients access to their EMR in a usable and understandable way. While its true impact is difficult to grasp, a relevant portion of the patients felt more involved in their treatment due to the web portal. Offering patients home EMR access, therefore, appears to be a valuable addition to the care process.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 van der Vaart et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Carlin CS, Christianson JB, Keenan P, Finch M: Chronic illness and patient satisfaction. Health Serv Res 2012, 47(6):2250-2272.
• [2]Arvidsson S, Bergman S, Arvidsson B, Fridlund B, Tingström P: Psychometric properties of the Swedish Rheumatic Disease Empowerment Scale, SWE-RES-23. Musculoskelet Care 2012, 10(2):101-109.
• [3]Ruland CM, Andersen T, Jeneson A, Moore S, Grimsbø GH, Børøsund E, Ellison MC: Effects of an Internet support system to assist cancer patients in reducing symptom distress. Cancer Nurs 2013, 36(1):6-17.
• [4]Wagner EH, Austin BT, Davis C, Hindmarsh M, Schaefer J, Bonomi A: Improving chronic illness care: translating evidence into action. Health Aff 2001, 20:64-78.
• [5]Buntin MB, Burke MF, Hoaglin MC, Blumenthal D: The benefits of health information technology: a review of the recent literature shows predominantly positive results. Health Affair 2011, 30(3):464-471.
• [6]Fisher B, Fitton R, Poirier C, Stables D: Patient record access – the time has come! Br J Gen Pract 2007, 57(539):507-511.
• [7]Eysenbach G: Medicine 2.0: social networking, collaboration, participation, apomediation, and openness. J Med Internet Res 2008, 10:e22.
• [8]Gravis G, Protière C, Eisinger F, Boher JM, Tarpin C, Coso D, Cappiello M, Camerlo J, Genre D, Viens P: Full access to medical records does not modify anxiety in cancer patients. Cancer 2011, 117(20):4796-4804.
• [9]Tuil WS, Verhaak CM, Braat DDM, de Vries Robbé PF, Kremer JAM: Empowering patients undergoing in vitro fertilization by providing Internet access to medical data. Fertil Steril 2007, 88(2):361-368.
• [10]Ammenwerth E, Schnell-Inderst P, Hoerbst A: The impact of electronic patient portals on patient care: a systematic review of controlled trials. J Med Internet Res 2012, 14(6):e162.
• [11]Chaudhry B, Wang J, Wu S, Maglione M, Mojica W, Roth E, Morton SC, Shekelle PG: Systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Ann Intern Med 2006, 144(10):742-752.
• [12]Winkelman WJ, Leonard KJ, Rossos PG: Patient-perceived usefulness of online electronic medical records: employing grounded theory in the development of information and communication technologies for use by patients living with chronic illness. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005, 12:306-314.
• [13]Urowitz S, Smith K, Alkazaz N, Apatu E, Quartey NK, Wiljer D: Patient accessible electronic health records for the chronically ill: a review of the literature. J Hosp Admin 2012, 1(2):64-72.
• [14]Goldberg HI, Ralston JD, Hirsch IB, Hoath JI, Ahmed KI: Using an Internet comanagement module to improve the quality of chronic disease care. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2003, 29(9):443-451.
• [15]Ross SE, Moore LA, Earnest MA, Wittevrongel L, Lin CT: Providing a web-based online medical record with electronic communication capabilities to patients with congestive heart failure: randomized trial. J Med Internet Res 2004, 6(2):e12.
• [16]Grant RW, Wald JS, Schnipper JL, Gandhi TK, Poon EG, Orav EJ, Williams DH, Volk LA, Middleton B: Practice-linked online personal health records for type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled trial. Archives Internal Med 2008, 168(16):1776-1782.
• [17]Or CKL, Karsh B: A systematic review of patients acceptance of consumer health information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2009, 16:550-560.
• [18]Norman CD, Skinner HA: eHealth literacy: essential skills for consumer health in a networked world. J Med Internet Res 2006, 8(2):e9.
• [19]Van der Vaart R, Drossaert CHC, Taal E, Van de Laar MAFJ: Experiences and preferences of patients with rheumatic diseases regarding an interactive health communication application. Saint Martin: Proceedings of the 2nd eTELEMED International Conference on eHealth, Telemedicine, and Social Medicine; 2010:64-71. doi: 10.1109/eTELEMED.2010.16
• [20]Van der Vaart R, Drossaert CHC, Taal E, Van de Laar MAFJ: Patient preferences for a hospital based rheumatology Interactive Health Communication Application, and factors associated with these preferences. Rheumatology 2011, 50(9):1618-1626.
• [21]Van der Vaart R, Drossaert CHC, Taal E, Van de Laar MAFJ: Giving rheumatology patients online home access to their electronic medical record (EMR): advantages, drawbacks and preconditions according to care providers. Rheumatol Int 2012. ePub ahead of print
• [22]Van Gemert-Pijnen JEWC, Nijland N, Van Limburg M, Eng B, Ossebaard HC, Kelders SM, Eysenbach G, Seydel ER: A holistic framework to improve the uptake and impact of eHealth technologies. J Med Internet Res 2011, 13(4):e111.
• [23]Ishikawa H, Takeuchi T, Yano E: Measuring functional, communicative, and critical health literacy among diabetic patients. Diabetes Care 2008, 31(5):874-879.
• [24]Van der Vaart R, Drossaert CHC, Taal E, Ten Klooster PM, Hilderink-Koertshuis RTE, Klaase JM, Van de Laar MAFJ: Validation of the Dutch functional, communicative and critical health literacy scales. Pat Educ Couns 2012. ePub ahead of print
• [25]Van Campen C, Sixma HJ, Kerssens JJ, Peters L, Rasker JJ: Assessing patients’ priorities and perceptions of the quality of health care: the development of the quote-rheumatic-patients-instrument. Br J Rheumatol 1998, 37(4):362-368.
• [26]Ommen O, Janssen C, Neugebauer E, Bouillon B, Rehm K, Rangger C, Erli HJ, Pfaff H: Trust, social support and patient type-Associations between patients perceived trust, supportive communication and patients preferences in regard to paternalism, clarification and participation of severely injured patients. Patient Educ Couns 2008, 73(2):196-204.
• [27]Maly RC, Frank JC, Marshall GN, DiMatteo MR, Reuben DB: Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions (PEPPI): validation of an instrument in older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 1998, 46:889-894.
• [28]Ten Klooster PM, Oostveen JCM, Zandbelt LC, Taal E, Drossaert CHC, Harmsen EJ, Van de Laar MAFJ: Further validation of the 5-item Perceived Efficacy in Patient–Physician Interactions (PEPPI-5) scale in patients with osteoarthritis. Patient Educ Couns 2012, 87(1):125-130.
• [29]Moss-Morris R, Weinman J, Petrie KJ, Horne R, Cameron LD, Buick D: The revised Illness Perception Questionnaire (IPQ-R). Psychol Health 2002, 17(1):1-16.
• [30]Morisky DE, Green LW, Levine DM: Concurrent and predictive validity of a self-reported measure of medication adherence. Med Care 1986, 24(1):67-74.
• [31]Morisky DE, Ang A, Krousel-Wood M, Ward HJ: Predictive validity of a medication adherence measure in an outpatient setting. J Clin Hypertens 2008, 10(5):348-354.
• [32]Zhou Y, Garrido T, Chin H, Wiesenthal A, Liang L: Patient access to an electronic health record with secure messaging: impact on primary care utilization. Am J Manag Care 2007, 13(7):418-424.
• [33]Bhavnani V, Fisher B, WinWeld M, Seed P: How patients use access to their electronic GP record: a quantitative study. Fam Pract 2010, 0:1-7.
• [34]Kahn JS, Hilton JF, Van Nunnery T, Leasure S, Bryant KM, Hare CB, Thom DH: Personal health records in a public hospital: experience at the HIV/AIDS clinic at San Francisco General Hospital. J Am Med Inf Assoc 2010, 17(2):224-228.
• [35]Greenhalgh T, Hinder S, Stramer K, Bratan T, Russell J: Adoption, non-adoption, and abandonment of a personal electronic health record: case study of HealthSpace. BMJ 2010, 341:c5814.
• [36]Zickmund SL, Hess R, Bryce CL, McTigue K, Olshansky E, Fitzgerald K, Fischer GS: Interest in the use of computerized patient portals: role of the provider-patient relationship. J Gen Intern Med 2008, 23(Suppl 1):20-26.
• [37]Ross SE, Todd J, Moore LA, Beaty BL, Wittevrongel L, Lin CT: Expectations of patients and physicians regarding patient-accessible medical records. J Med Internet Res 2005, 7:e13.
• [38]Wiljer D, Leonard K, Urowitz S, Apatu E, Massey C, Kwarley QN: The anxious wait: assessing the impact of patient accessible EHRs for breast cancer patients. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2010, 10(1):46. BioMed Central Full Text
• [39]Van der Vaart R, Drossaert CHC, De Heus M, Taal E, Van de Laar MAFJ: Measuring actual eHealth literacy among patients with rheumatic diseases: a qualitative analysis of problems encountered using Health 1.0 and Health 2.0 applications. J Med Internet Res 2013, 15:e27.
• [40]Ralston JD, Hirsch IB, Hoath J, Mullen M, Cheadle A, Goldberg HI: Web-based collaborative care for type 2 diabetes: a pilot randomized trial. Diabetes Care 2009, 32(2):234-239.
• [41]Osborn CY, Satterwhite Mayberry L, Mulvaney SA, Hess R: Patient web portals to improve diabetes outcomes: a systematic review. Curr Diab Rep 2010, 10(6):422-435.