scholarly journals Activation and Utilization of an Electronic Health Record Patient Portal at an Academic Medical Center—Impact of Patient Demographics and Geographic Location

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 237428951879757 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah E. R. Oest ◽  
Maia Hightower ◽  
Matthew D. Krasowski
2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 253-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Wildman-Tobriner ◽  
Matthew P. Thorpe ◽  
Nicholas Said ◽  
Wendy L. Ehieli ◽  
Christopher J. Roth ◽  
...  

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Castaneda ◽  
corey rearick ◽  
Joseph Weber ◽  
Eve Edstrom ◽  
Kimisha Cassidy ◽  
...  

Introduction: In the current value-based era, targeting diagnostic resources and minimizing unnecessary testing is of paramount importance. Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is a common and costly test, and available Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) guide optimal utilization. Limited TTE (L-TTE) shortens sonographer time, lowers cost and may be ideal for repeat TTEs (R-TTE) with a focused indication. However, many clinicians are unfamiliar with the AUC and opportunities for L-TTE. We prospectively tested an Electronic Health Record (EHR)-based intervention aimed at optimizing TTE utilization in a large academic medical center. Methods: TTE utilization at the University of Chicago Medicine was assessed over a 6-month period and complete TTE (C-TTE), L-TTE and R-TTE (TTE repeated within 6 months) were recorded. An EHR-based intervention was then implemented and TTE utilization was assessed over the ensuing 8 weeks. The intervention included presenting new descriptive L-TTE options (i.e. “Limited TTE: EF or Effusion Only”) when any “echo” was searched in the EHR order panel, an alert to prior TTEs (i.e. date & LVEF) and a link to AUC-based guidance for TTE ordering. Educational materials were also distributed to frequent TTE ordering providers. Results: Among 9121 TTEs (53% inpatient) pre-intervention , 11% (n=1002) were L-TTEs and 25% (n=2320) were R-TTEs. There were more L-TTEs and R-TTEs in pre-intervention inpatients compared to outpatients (L-TTE 14% vs 7%, p<0.0001, R-TTE 33% vs 17%, p<0.0001). Post-intervention (2879 TTEs, 53% inpatient), R-TTEs significantly decreased (22.6% vs 25.4%, p=0.0019) and L-TTEs significantly increased (14% vs 11%, p<0.0001) compared to pre-intervention, with inpatient TTEs most impacted (R-TTE 28% vs 33%, p=0.0016, L-TTE 19% vs 14%, p<0.001). The intervention’s greatest impact was to markedly increase L-TTEs among inpatient R-TTEs (44% vs 35%, p=0.0002). Conclusions: Despite AUC discouraging frequent repeat TTEs, R-TTEs are common in an academic medical center and utilization of L-TTE is rare. An EHR-based intervention with prior TTE alerts and descriptive L-TTE options increases L-TTEs and reduces R-TTEs. Further study is warranted to describe the full clinical and financial impact of this intervention.


2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 354-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jillian Zavodnick ◽  
Rebecca Jaffe ◽  
Marc Altshuler ◽  
Scott Cowan ◽  
Alexis Wickersham ◽  
...  

Miscommunications during patient handoff can lead to harm. The I-PASS bundle has been shown to improve safety outcomes. Although effective training reliably improves verbal handoffs, research has demonstrated a lack of effect on written handoffs. The objective was to compare written handoff before and after integration of a standardized electronic health record (EHR) tool. Interns at a large urban academic medical center underwent I-PASS handoff training. The EHR handoff tool was then revised to prompt the I-PASS components. Handoff documents were obtained before and after the intervention. More handoffs included Illness Severity (33% to 59%, P < .001) and Action List (65% to 83%, P = .005) after the intervention. There was no change in handoffs with miscommunications (12.5% to 10%, P = .566) or omissions (8% to 11%, P = .447). Handoffs including tangential or unrelated information decreased (20% to 4%, P = .001). A written handoff tool can reinforce the effect of training and increase adherence to I-PASS.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (03) ◽  
pp. 433-441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lina Sulieman ◽  
Bryan Steitz ◽  
S. Trent Rosenbloom

Abstract Background Patient portals provide patients and their caregivers online access to limited health results. Health care employees with electronic health record (EHR) access may be able to view their health information not available in the patient portal by looking in the EHR. Objective In this study, we examine how employees use the patient portal when they also have access to the tethered EHR. Methods We obtained patient portal and EHR usage logs corresponding to all employees who viewed their health data at our institution between January 1, 2013 and November 1, 2017. We formed three cohorts based on the systems that employees used to view their health data: employees who used the patient portal only, employees who viewed health data in the EHR only, and employees who used both systems. We compared system accesses and usage patterns for each employee cohort. Results During the study period, 35,172 employees accessed the EHR as part of patients' treatment and 28,631 employees accessed their health data: 25,193 of them used the patient portal and 13,318 accessed their clinical data in EHR. All employees who accessed their records in the EHR viewed their clinical notes at least once. Among EHR accesses, clinical note accesses comprised more than 42% of all EHR accesses. Provider messaging and appointment scheduling were the most commonly used functions in the patient portal. Employees who had access to their health data in both systems were more likely to engage with providers through portal messages. Conclusion Employees at a large medical center accessed clinical notes in the EHR to obtain information about their health. Employees also viewed other health data not readily available in the patient portal.


2017 ◽  
Vol 148 (6) ◽  
pp. 513-522 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert L Schmidt ◽  
Jorie M Colbert-Getz ◽  
Caroline K Milne ◽  
Daniel J Vargo ◽  
Jerry W Hussong ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document