Jonathan S. Wald

Opportunities to enhance patient and physician e-mail contact.

The purpose of our study was to evaluate how e-mail is currently used between physicians and patients in an integrated delivery system, and to identify developments that might promote increased use of this form of communication. A paper-based survey questionnaire was administered to 94 primary care physicians. We evaluated the role e-mail currently plays in a physicians typical work day, physician views on the impact of e-mail on phone use and the barriers to increasing the use of e-mail with patients. 76% of physicians surveyed responded. All respondents currently use e-mail. Close to 75% of physicians use e-mail with their patients, but the vast majority do so with only 1-5% of those patients. 50% of physicians believe that up to 25% of their patients would send e-mail to them if given the option, with an additional 37% believing that between 25% and 50% of patients would value this option. The main reported barriers to physician-patient e-mail related to workload, security and payment. Our survey findings indicate that with adequate pre-screening, triage, and reimbursement mechanisms physicians would be open to substantially increasing e-mail communication with patients.

Patient Perceptions of a Personal Health Record: A Test of the Diffusion of Innovation Model

Background Personal health records (PHRs) have emerged as an important tool with which patients can electronically communicate with their doctors and doctor’s offices. However, there is a lack of theoretical and empirical research on how patients perceive the PHR and the differences in perceptions between users and non-users of the PHR. Objective To apply a theoretical model, the diffusion of innovation model, to the study of PHRs and conduct an exploratory empirical study on the applicability of the model to the study of perceptions of PHRs. A secondary objective was to assess whether perceptions of PHRs predict the perceived value of the PHR for communicating with the doctor’s office. Methods We first developed a survey capturing perceptions of PHR use and other factors such as sociodemographic characteristics, access and use of technology, perceived innovativeness in the domain of information technology, and perceptions of privacy and security. We then conducted a cross-sectional survey (N = 1500). Patients were grouped into five groups of 300: PHR users (innovators, other users, and laggards), rejecters, and non-adopters. We applied univariate statistical analysis (Pearson chi-square and one-way ANOVA) to assess differences among groups and used multivariate statistical techniques (factor analysis and multiple regression analysis) to assess the presence of factors identified by the diffusion of innovation model and the predictors of our dependent variable (value of PHR for communicating with the doctor’s office). Results Of the 1500 surveys, 760 surveys were returned for an overall response rate of 51%. Computer use among non-adopters (75%) was lower than that among PHR users (99%) and rejecters (92%) (P < .001). Non-adopters also reported a lower score on personal innovativeness in information technology (mean = 2.8) compared to 3.6 and 3.1, respectively, for users and rejecters (P < .001). Four factors identified by the diffusion of innovation model emerged in the factor analysis: ease of use, relative advantage, observability, and trialability. PHR users perceived greater ease of use and relative advantage of the PHR than rejecters and non-adopters (P<.001). Multiple regression analysis showed the following factors as significant positive predictors of the value of PHR for communicating with the doctor’s office: relative advantage, ease of use, trialability, perceptions of privacy and security, age, and computer use. Conclusion Our study found that the diffusion of innovation model fits the study of perceptions of the PHR and provides a suitable theoretical and empirical framework to identify the factors that distinguish PHR users from non-users. The ease of use and relative advantage offered by the PHR emerged as the most important domains among perceptions of PHR use and in predicting the value of the PHR. Efforts to improve uptake and use of PHRs should focus on strategies that enhance the ease of use of PHRs and that highlight the relative advantages of PHRs.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Health Maintenance Reminders Provided Directly to Patients Through an Electronic PHR

BACKGROUNDProvider and patient reminders can be effective in increasing rates of preventive screenings and vaccinations. However, the effect of patient-directed electronic reminders is understudied.OBJECTIVETo determine whether providing reminders directly to patients via an electronic Personal Health Record (PHR) improved adherence to care recommendations.DESIGNWe conducted a cluster randomized trial without blinding from 2005 to 2007 at 11 primary care practices in the Partners HealthCare system.PARTICIPANTSA total of 21,533 patients with access to a PHR were invited to the study, and 3,979 (18.5%) consented to enroll.INTERVENTIONSPatients in the intervention arm received health maintenance (HM) reminders via a secure PHR “eJournal,” which allowed them to review and update HM and family history information. Patients in the active control arm received access to an eJournal that allowed them to input and review information related to medications, allergies and diabetes management.MAIN MEASURESThe primary outcome measure was adherence to guideline-based care recommendations.KEY RESULTSIntention-to-treat analysis showed that patients in the intervention arm were significantly more likely to receive mammography (48.6% vs 29.5%, p = 0.006) and influenza vaccinations (22.0% vs 14.0%, p = 0.018). No significant improvement was observed in rates of other screenings. Although Pap smear completion rates were higher in the intervention arm (41.0% vs 10.4%, p < 0.001), this finding was no longer significant after excluding women’s health clinics. Additional on-treatment analysis showed significant increases in mammography (p = 0.019) and influenza vaccination (p = 0.015) for intervention arm patients who opened an eJournal compared to control arm patients, but no differences for any measure among patients who did not open an eJournal.CONCLUSIONSProviding patients with HM reminders via a PHR may be effective in improving some elements of preventive care.

Implementing practice-linked pre-visit electronic journals in primary care: patient and physician use and satisfaction

Electronic health records (EHRs) and EHR-connected patient portals offer patient-provider collaboration tools for visit-based care. During a randomized controlled trial, primary care patients completed pre-visit electronic journals (eJournals) containing EHR-based medication, allergies, and diabetes (study arm 1) or health maintenance, personal history, and family history (study arm 2) topics to share with their provider. Assessment with surveys and usage data showed that among 2027 patients invited to complete an eJournal, 70.3% submitted one and 71.1% of submitters had one opened by their provider. Surveyed patients reported they felt more prepared for the visit (55.9%) and their provider had more accurate information about them (58.0%). More arm 1 versus arm 2 providers reported that eJournals were visit-time neutral (100% vs 53%; p<0.013), helpful to patients in visit preparation (66% vs 20%; p=0.082), and would recommend them to colleagues (78% vs 22%; p=0.0143). eJournal integration into practice warrants further study.

Personalized health care and health information technology policy: an exploratory analysis.

Personalized healthcare (PHC) is envisioned to enhance clinical practice decision-making using new genome-driven knowledge that tailors diagnosis, treatment, and prevention to the individual patient. In 2012, we conducted a focused environmental scan and informal interviews with fifteen experts to anticipate how PHC might impact health Information Technology (IT) policy in the United States. Findings indicatedthat PHC has a variable impact on current clinical practice, creates complex questions for providers, patients, and policy-makers, and will require a robust health IT infrastructure with advanced data architecture, clinical decision support, provider workflow tools, and re-use of clinical data for research. A number of health IT challenge areas were identified, along with five policy areas including: interoperable clinical decision support, standards for patient values and preferences, patient engagement, data transparency, and robust privacy and security.