scholarly journals Assessing commercially available personal health records for home health

2016 ◽  
Vol 07 (02) ◽  
pp. 355-367 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yong Choi ◽  
George Demiris ◽  
Laura Kneale
Keyword(s):  
Information Needs ◽  
Medical Information ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Home Health ◽  
Personal Health Records ◽  
Personal Health ◽  
Health Records ◽  
Home Health Nurses

SummaryHome health nurses and clients experience unmet information needs when transitioning from hospital to home health. Personal health records (PHRs) support consumer-centered information management activities. Previous work has assessed PHRs associated with healthcare providers, but these systems leave home health nurses unable to access necessary information.To evaluate the ability of publically available PHRs to accept, manage, and share information from a home health case study.Two researchers accessed the publically available PHRs on myPHR.com, and attempted to enter, manage, and share the case study data. We qualitatively described the PHR features, and identified gaps between the case study information and PHR functionality.Eighteen PHRs were identified in our initial search. Seven systems met our inclusion criteria, and are included in this review. The PHRs were able to accept basic medical information. Gaps occurred when entering, managing, and/or sharing data from the acute care and home health episodes. The PHRs that were reviewed were unable to effectively manage the case study information. Therefore, increasing consumer health literacy through these systems may be difficult. The PHRs that we reviewed were also unable to electronically share their data.The gap between the existing functionality and the information needs from the case study may make these PHRs difficult to use for home health environments. Additional work is needed to increase the functionality of the PHR systems to better fit the data needs of home health clients.

Who is allowed to read and write?

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 116-117
Author(s):  
Christian P Subbe ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Information Needs ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Personal Health Records ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Personal Health ◽  
Care Needs ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Health Records ◽  
Clinical Records ◽  
The Way

What makes us human? In 2015 Jeremy Vine asked this question to a selection of leading British thinkers and writers. The answers were as diverse as the people he interviewed. While you might have your own views about the complexity of being human I would suggest that being able to articulate thoughts and communicate them to others might be one of the characteristics that distinguishes us from other life forms. And if we think more about the achievements of human culture then being able to communicate thoughts in writing and reading other people’s thoughts is one of the unique abilities that humanity has acquired during its evolution: Young humans spend extensive time to learn how to read and write. They write on paper, they read books and they do the same on computers. They become adults. They read and write most days: they e-mail their telephone company, file online forms to the tax office and or write romantic notes to their partner. Then they get older and become unwell and enter large modern building full of the most state-of-the-art technology. But here, in hospitals, none of them are allowed to read or write. They are being asked questions by someone who is often younger and in a rush. That person usually speaks a different language called jargon and try their best to translate their jargon to normal language.1 Patients are not allowed to write their own records and access to read the records is cumbersome. And if this is how we structure communication in our clinical practice then why are we surprised about the hierarchical relationship between patients and healthcare professionals and the high rate of error due to miscommunication? There might be good reasons for the way we document in healthcare: historically only the educated few like doctors were able to read and write and therefore the way to record patient histories had to be by those who were educated to do so. Additionally professions have always defined themselves by their own professional language and jargon that allows their members to describe matters precisely and at the same time create a sense of identity. Things have however changed in the last 100 years and a large proportion of our patients is able to read and write and might be perfectly capable to document their own information (and subsequently read all information that relates to them). The paper from Renggli et al in this issue of Acute Medicine explores the feasibility of documentation by patients on admission to hospital in Switzerland by using a web-based platform: at least half of the patients who were admitted with an emergency to hospital could document important parts their own medical history. The study demonstrated that documentation by patients added additional new information over and beyond of that collected by doctors and improved completeness of records, especially for the increasingly important social history. The paper has three important implications: Good information needs time: Patients can add more information if given the questions and their own time – rushing through an unprepared face-to-face consultation is unlikely to bring out the most relevant information in a reliable fashion. Sharing with patients might improve work-efficiency. Up to 25% of the time of doctors and nurses working in hospitals is taken up by documentation2,3: at a time when so many employed in healthcare are overworked and burnt out it would be reckless not to consider changes in information flow through the lens of work-load and efficiency. Quality care needs joint ownership with patients: Patients participation in the co-design and delivery of new services and shared decision of patients and clinicians in making of complex decision has been challenging to say the least. Co-ownership of clinical records is potentially a key strategic lever to achieve better decisions and services. Patient organisations and policy makers are expecting for patients to access medical records. Personal health records are now compulsory in some countries with roll-out of access for all citizens completed in countries like Estonia since 20084 and Sweden since 2018.5 It is National Health Service (NHS) policy to make a “personalized healthcare” available to everybody by 2020.6 That is now. Despite this there is virtually no evidence for the usage of personal health records in hospital.7,8 There are significant caveats to the current study: Half of the patients approached declined to take part and it is unclear why this was the case. Maybe they did not want to take part in any research. Maybe they felt too unwell to write. And maybe they were unable to read and write. While most people reaching adulthood in European countries have gone to school there is also evidence that up to 7 million adults in England are functionally illiterate and not able to read and write beyond the most basic level9 and relying on friends and family members, signs and symbols to travel through modern life. There is also an increasing body of work about digital exclusion and concerns that those who are unable to navigate the online world are at risk of being left behind by society.10 There are additional questions about ownership: do patients own all data that relates to their care or is documentation by healthcare professionals their intellectual property. There are strong arguments for both perspectives. From a patient safety point of view their would seem to be a strong imperative to come to pragmatic agreements. Research suggests that the majority of serious adverse events was flagged by patients and relatives at a time when they could have been predicted and potentially prevented by clinical teams.11 But safety critical information is often hidden from those who are most affected by it, the patients. The paper by Renggli et all does therefore provide important evidence for the development of a more co-operative and democratic way of providing acute care by using something that is a key part of being human: the ability to read and write.

scholarly journals Continuity of care in Ghana: the promise of smart-med

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 473
Author(s):  
Henry Ogoe ◽  
Odame Agyapong ◽  
Fredrick Troas Lutterodt
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Continuity Of Care ◽  
Medical Information ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Personal Health Records ◽  
Personal Health ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Health Records ◽  
Fragmentation Of Care

Individuals tend to receive medical care from different health care providers as they drift from one location to another. Oftentimes, multiple providers operate disparate systems of managing patients medical records. These disparate systems, which are unable to share and/or exchange information, have the propensity to create fragmentation of care, which poses a serious threat to the realization of continuity of care in the Ghanaian health care delivery. Continuity of care, which is the ability to seamlessly access, update, and manage patients medical information as they visit multiple providers, is a crucial component of quality of care in any health delivery system. The current system of managing patients records in Ghanapaper-basedmakes continuity of care difficult to actualize. To this end, we have developed a smartcard based personal health records system, SMART-MED, which can effectively promote continuity of care in Ghana. SMART-MED is platform-independent; it can run as standalone or configured to plug into any Java-based electronic medical record system. Results of a lab simulation test suggest that it can effectively promote continuity of care through improved data security, support interoperability for disparate systems, and seamless access and update of patients health records. Keywords: Continuity of Care, Fragmentation of Care, Interoperability, Personal Health Records, Smartcard.

scholarly journals The Association of Mobile Health Applications with Self-Management Behaviors among Adults with Chronic Conditions in the United States

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (19) ◽  
pp. 10351
Author(s):  
Hao Wang ◽  
Amy F. Ho ◽  
R. Constance Wiener ◽  
Usha Sambamoorthi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Chronic Conditions ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Personal Health Records ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Personal Health ◽  
Health Records ◽  
Mhealth Apps ◽  
Management Behaviors

Background: Mobile applications related to health and wellness (mHealth apps) are widely used to self-manage chronic conditions. However, research on whether mHealth apps facilitate self-management behaviors of individuals with chronic conditions is sparse. We aimed to evaluate the association of mHealth apps with different types of self-management behaviors among patients with chronic diseases in the United States. Methods: This is a cross-sectional observational study. We used data from adult participants (unweighted n = 2340) of the Health Information National Trends Survey in 2018 and 2019. We identified three self-management behaviors: (1) resource utilization using electronic personal health records; (2) treatment discussions with healthcare providers; and (3) making healthcare decisions. We analyzed the association of mHealth apps to self-management behaviors with multivariable logistic and ordinal regressions. Results: Overall, 59.8% of adults (unweighted number = 1327) used mHealth apps. Adults using mHealth apps were more likely to use personal health records (AOR = 3.11, 95% CI 2.26–4.28), contact healthcare providers using technology (AOR = 2.70, 95% CI 1.93–3.78), and make decisions on chronic disease management (AOR = 2.59, 95% CI 1.93–3.49). The mHealth apps were associated with higher levels of self-management involvement (AOR = 3.53, 95% CI 2.63–4.72). Conclusion: Among individuals with chronic conditions, having mHealth apps was associated with positive self-management behaviors.

scholarly journals Developing a Third-Party Analytics Application Using Australia’s National Personal Health Records System: Case Study

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. e28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niranjan Bidargaddi ◽  
Yasmin van Kasteren ◽  
Peter Musiat ◽  
Michael Kidd
Keyword(s):  
Personal Health Records ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Personal Health ◽  
Health Records

Development of Personal Health Records (PHR) for Patiets with Malignancies Using Interactive Internet Service: Experience at National Center for Hematology in Moscow.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 1407-1407
Author(s):  
Nikita E Shklovskiy-Kordi ◽  
Boris V Zingerman ◽  
Lyuba Varticovski ◽  
Alexandra Kremenetskya ◽  
Andrei Vorobjov
Keyword(s):  
Medical Records ◽  
Medical Information ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Meaningful Use ◽  
Personal Health Records ◽  
National Standard ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Personal Health ◽  
Health Records ◽  
Internet Service

Abstract Abstract 1407 Poster Board I-429 Purpose. To compare the requirements of physicians and patients for the Internet interactive service which allows patients to manage their own medical records and communicate with physician via the Internet. Background. USA federal rule defining “the Meaningful Use of Electronic Health Records” is similar to that of the National Standard of Russian Federation “The Electronic Case History (EHR)”, operating since 2008. This National Standard was developed based on experience of EHR system at the National Center for Hematology in Moscow (NCH). In 2009, we started the Personal Health Records service (PHR service) that allows patients to manage their own medical records and have internet-based communication with physicians. Simple interface for patients which blocks the full capacity of the PHR service is similar to that of EHR system of NCH. It permits integrated data presentations on a uniform axis of time and access to additional information (reported to ASH in 2001). The PHR service raises question of “meaningful use” requirements not only for EHR provider organization, but for the service users - patients and doctors. Methods. Using questionnaires and interviews, we compared expectations and acceptance of the PHR service by doctors and their patients. Results and Discussion. Preliminary results indicate that doctors are more likely to use the PHR service than the System of HER. Although the entire format of PHR service is familiar to physicians at NCH, they mostly use its information capabilities (viewing the results of the analysis, making appointments for research and planning patient's visits). The patients use PHR service with great enthusiasm (increasing with younger age and higher level of education). The complexity of integration interfaces, which we leave for the patients in the second term, gives them more inspiration than that the physicians. However, few patients take seriously the responsibilities that exist in relation to the accurate maintenance of their records. Conclusion. PHR can be widely used if integration of sources for medical information and unification format can simplify the “manual” work of PHR management. Key Words: Telemedicine, PHR, EHR Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals User Experience of Mobile Personal Health Records for the Emergency Department: Mixed Methods Study

10.2196/24326 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. e24326
Author(s):  
Su Min Kim ◽  
Taerim Kim ◽  
Won Chul Cha ◽  
Jae-Ho Lee ◽  
In Ho Kwon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
User Experience ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Medical Information ◽  
Personal Health Records ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Health Conditions ◽  
Personal Health ◽  
Health Records

Background Personal health records (PHRs) can be useful in the emergency department, as they provide patient information in an accurate and timely manner and enable it to be used actively. This has an effect on patients’ health outcomes and patient experience. Despite the importance of PHRs in emergencies, there are only a few studies related to PHRs in emergencies that evaluate patient experience. Objective This study aims to introduce the novel mobile PHR (mPHR) platform to emergency environments and assess user experience. Methods The study was conducted from October 2019 to November 2019. In total, 1000 patients or carers in the emergency departments of 3 hospitals were provided an application-based service called FirstER, which was developed to collect and utilize medical information for patients in the emergency department. This study was performed as a mixed methods study. After using FirstER, we investigated its usability and conducted a survey on the experience of obtaining medical information with a legacy system and with FirstER. Additionally, we interviewed 24 patients to gain insight into their experiences regarding medical information using FirstER. For the quantitative analysis, the survey results were analyzed using descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation). For the qualitative analysis, we determined the keywords and their frequencies from each survey question and interview question. Results In total, 1000 participants, consisting of both patients and carers, were recruited in this study. Their mean age was 41.4 (SD 13.3) years. We ascertained participants’ satisfaction with FirstER and their mPHR needs through a survey and an in-depth interview. With the current system, participants were not well aware of their health conditions and medical information, and they were passive in the use of their medical information and treatment. However, they wanted their medical information for several reasons, such as information sharing and managing their health conditions. FirstER provided participants with their needed information and an easy way to access it. The mean System Usability Scale (SUS) value was 67.1 (SD 13.8), which was considered very near to acceptable. Conclusions This study is the first to implement mPHRs in the emergency department of large tertiary hospitals in the Republic of Korea. FirstER was found to enhance user experience in emergencies, as it provided necessary medical information and proper user experience. Moreover, the average SUS was 67.1, which means that participants found FirstER to be very near to acceptable. This is very encouraging in that FirstER was developed within a very short time, and it was a pilot study. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04180618; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04180618

scholarly journals Energy efficiency in software: A case study on sustainability in personal health records

2021 ◽  
Vol 282 ◽  
pp. 124262
Author(s):  
José A. García-Berná ◽  
José L. Fernández-Alemán ◽  
Juan M. Carrillo de Gea ◽  
Ambrosio Toval ◽  
Javier Mancebo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Energy Efficiency ◽  
Personal Health Records ◽  
Personal Health ◽  
Health Records

The uses of personal health records for communication among colorectal cancer survivors, caregivers, and providers (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Carr ◽  
David Haggstrom
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Personal Health Records ◽  
Personal Health ◽  
Discrete Observations ◽  
Health Records ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Survivors

BACKGROUND Personal Health Records (PHRs) may be useful for patient self-management, as well as participation in communication with their caregivers and healthcare providers. As each potential participant’s role is different, their perception of the best uses of a PHR may vary. OBJECTIVE The perspectives of patients, caregivers, and providers were all evaluated concurrently in relation to a PHR developed for colorectal cancer survivors. METHODS We explored group perceptions of a colorectal cancer (CRC) PHR prototype. Scenario-based testing across eight use cases, with semi-structured follow-up interviews, was videotaped in a human-computer interaction laboratory with patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers. Providers included oncology, gastroenterology, and primary care physicians. Discrete observations underwent grounded theory visual affinity analysis to identify emergent themes. RESULTS All groups noted the added value of linking the PHR to an electronic health record; tracking follow-up testing; and secure messaging. Patients and caregivers valued the journal as a tool for reflection and to receive emotional support. Providers felt the PHR would facilitate patient-physician communication, but worried that sharing journal access would make the doctor-patient relationship less professional and had reservations about the time burden of reviewing. CONCLUSIONS PHR perceptions differed by role, with providers seeing the PHR as informational, while patients and caregivers viewed the tool as more relational. Patients and providers should establish shared expectations about the optimal use of the PHR in the patient-provider relationship.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document