Improving Cancer Care Communication: Identifying Sociodemographic Differences in Patient Portal Secure Messages Not Authored by the Patient

Background and Significance

Patient portals allow patients to track test results, report self-administered medications, and communicate with their providers through portal-mediated secure messages (PSMs).[1] Oncology patients rate this opportunity to engage with their care team as more important than other patients, likely related to the increased complexity of their management.[2] PSMs provide a valuable source of information about patients, including references to health needs, care coordination, and questions about their treatment plans.[3] [4]

Some patients prefer that their caregivers have access to their patient portal to help coordinate care and overcome barriers such as geographic distance.[5] This has led to the development of registered proxy accounts or the setup of separate, distinct accounts for caregivers.[6] [7] However, an estimated less than 1% of caregivers utilize formal proxy accounts because it is more convenient for them to use the patient's account.[5] As such, PSMs are frequently not authored by the patient, requiring careful interpretation of the messages by the care team.[5] [8] A study found that 46% of adult diabetic patients had at least one PSM authored by a caregiver who used the patient's portal credentials to log in (unregistered proxy) instead of using their proxy account.[9] Identification of unregistered proxy users can enhance patient security through accurate authentication, ensure that needs expressed in PSMs are appropriately being responded to whether from patients or caregivers, and help systems leverage technology to address barriers to portal engagement.

Little is known about the prevalence of unregistered proxy use among oncology patients or the demographics of oncology patients that may have others send PSMs on their behalf. This study aimed to determine if sociodemographic differences exist between patients with a high number of presumed-unregistered proxy messages compared with those with few to no unregistered messages in our patient population.

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

The study was performed in compliance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects and was reviewed by the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Institutional Review Board.

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 30. Dezember 2022

Angenommen: 16. Januar 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
19. Januar 2023

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
19. April 2023

• References

• 1 McCleary NJ, Greenberg TL, Barysauskas CM. et al. Oncology patient portal enrollment at a comprehensive cancer center: a quality improvement initiative. J Oncol Pract 2018; 14 (08) e451-e461
• 2 Rodriguez ES. Using patient portals to increase engagement in patients with cancer. Semin Oncol Nurs 2018; 34 (02) 177-183
• 3 Cronin RM, Fabbri D, Denny JC, Rosenbloom ST, Jackson GP. A comparison of rule-based and machine learning approaches for classifying patient portal messages. Int J Med Inform 2017; 105: 110-120
• 4 Liederman EM, Morefield CS. Web messaging: a new tool for patient-physician communication. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2003; 10 (03) 260-270
• 5 Reed ME, Huang J, Brand R. et al. Communicating through a patient portal to engage family care partners. JAMA Intern Med 2018; 178 (01) 142-144
• 6 Pecina J, Duvall MJ, North F. Frequency of and factors associated with care partner proxy interaction with health care teams using patient portal accounts. Telemed J E Health 2020; 26 (11) 1368-1372
• 7 Latulipe C, Quandt SA, Melius KA. et al. Insights into older adult patient concerns around the caregiver proxy portal use: qualitative interview study. J Med Internet Res 2018; 20 (11) e10524
• 8 Sarkar U, Bates DW. Care partners and online patient portals. JAMA 2014; 311 (04) 357-358
• 9 Semere W, Crossley S, Karter AJ. et al. Secure messaging with physicians by proxies for patients with diabetes: findings from the ECLIPPSE study. J Gen Intern Med 2019; 34 (11) 2490-2496
• 10 Nawab K, Ramsey G, Schreiber R. Natural language processing to extract meaningful information from patient experience feedback. Appl Clin Inform 2020; 11 (02) 242-252
• 11 Kostrinsky-Thomas AL, Hisama FM, Payne TH. Searching the pdf haystack: automated knowledge discovery in scanned EHR documents. Appl Clin Inform 2021; 12 (02) 245-250
• 12 Benda NC, Rogers CT, Sharma MM. et al. Identifying non-patient authors of patient portal secure messages in oncology: a proof of-concept demonstration of natural language processing methods. J Clin Inform (e-pub ahead of print).
• 13 Cronin RM, Fabbri D, Denny JC, Jackson GP. Automated classification of consumer health information needs in patient portal messages. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2015; 2015: 1861-1870
• 14 Ip W, Yang S, Parker J. et al. Assessment of prevalence of adolescent patient portal account access by guardians. JAMA Netw Open 2021; 4 (09) e2124733
• 15 Ancker JS, Barrón Y, Rockoff ML. et al. Use of an electronic patient portal among disadvantaged populations. J Gen Intern Med 2011; 26 (10) 1117-1123
• 16 Goel MS, Brown TL, Williams A, Cooper AJ, Hasnain-Wynia R, Baker DW. Patient reported barriers to enrolling in a patient portal. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011; 18 Suppl 1(suppl 1): i8-i12
• 17 Lyles CR, Allen JY, Poole D, Tieu L, Kanter MH, Garrido T. “I Want to Keep the Personal Relationship With My Doctor”: understanding barriers to portal use among African Americans and Latinos. J Med Internet Res 2016; 18 (10) e263
• 18 Sarkar U, Karter AJ, Liu JY. et al. Social disparities in internet patient portal use in diabetes: evidence that the digital divide extends beyond access. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011; 18 (03) 318-321
• 19 Alpert JM, Morris BB, Thomson MD, Matin K, Brown RF. Implications of patient portal transparency in oncology: qualitative interview study on the experiences of patients, oncologists, and medical informaticists. JMIR Cancer 2018; 4 (01) e5
• 20 Wolff JL, Darer JD, Berger A. et al. Inviting patients and care partners to read doctors' notes: OpenNotes and shared access to electronic medical records. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24 (e1): e166-e172
• 21 Wolff JL, Kim VS, Mintz S, Stametz R, Griffin JM. An environmental scan of shared access to patient portals. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2018; 25 (04) 408-412
• 22 Latulipe C, Mazumder SF, Wilson RKW. et al. Security and privacy risks associated with adult patient portal accounts in US hospitals. JAMA Intern Med 2020; 180 (06) 845-849
• 23 Crotty BH, Walker J, Dierks M. et al. Information sharing preferences of older patients and their families. JAMA Intern Med 2015; 175 (09) 1492-1497
• 24 Shenoy A, Appel JM. Safeguarding confidentiality in electronic health records. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2017; 26 (02) 337-341
• 25 Martin MY, Sanders S, Griffin JM. et al. Racial variation in the cancer caregiving experience: a multisite study of colorectal and lung cancer caregivers. Cancer Nurs 2012; 35 (04) 249-256
• 26 Fenton ATHR, Ornstein KA, Dilworth-Anderson P. et al. Racial and ethnic disparities in cancer caregiver burden and potential sociocultural mediators. Support Care Cancer 2022; 30 (11) 9625-9633
• 27 Hong J. Natural language processing for the extraction of patient symptoms during cancer radiotherapy. Health Serv Res 2020; 55 (S1): 44-44
• 28 Cusick MM, Sholle ET, Davila MA, Kabariti J, Cole CL, Campion Jr TR. A method to improve availability and quality of patient race data in an electronic health record system. Appl Clin Inform 2020; 11 (05) 785-791