Download PDF
Appl Clin Inform 2019; 10(01): 040-050
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1676971
Research Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Technology Access, Technical Assistance, and Disparities in Inpatient Portal Use

Lisa V. Grossman
1   Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States
,
Ruth M. Masterson Creber
2   Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, United States
,
Jessica S. Ancker
2   Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, United States
,
Beatriz Ryan
3   Value Institute, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, United States
,
Fernanda Polubriaginof
3   Value Institute, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, United States
,
Min Qian
4   Department of Biostatistics, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States
,
Irma Alarcon
1   Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States
,
Susan Restaino
5   Department of Medicine, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, United States
,
Suzanne Bakken
1   Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States
,
George Hripcsak
1   Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States
,
David K. Vawdrey
1   Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States
3   Value Institute, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, United States
› Author Affiliations Funding This work was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS21816, PI: Vawdrey), the National Library of Medicine (T15LM007079), and the National Institute of Nursing Research (K99NR016275, PI: Masterson Creber).
Further Information

Publication History

17 August 2018

22 November 2018

Publication Date:
16 January 2019 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Disadvantaged populations, including minorities and the elderly, use patient portals less often than relatively more advantaged populations. Limited access to and experience with technology contribute to these disparities. Free access to devices, the Internet, and technical assistance may eliminate disparities in portal use.

Objective To examine predictors of frequent versus infrequent portal use among hospitalized patients who received free access to an iPad, the Internet, and technical assistance.

Materials and Methods This subgroup analysis includes 146 intervention-arm participants from a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of an inpatient portal. The participants received free access to an iPad and inpatient portal while hospitalized on medical and surgical cardiac units, together with hands-on help using them. We used logistic regression to identify characteristics predictive of frequent use.

Results More technology experience (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 5.39, p = 0.049), less severe illness (adjusted OR = 2.07, p = 0.077), and private insurance (adjusted OR = 2.25, p = 0.043) predicted frequent use, with a predictive performance (area under the curve) of 65.6%. No significant differences in age, gender, race, ethnicity, level of education, employment status, or patient activation existed between the frequent and infrequent users in bivariate analyses. Significantly more frequent users noticed medical errors during their hospital stay.

Discussion and Conclusion Portal use was not associated with several sociodemographic characteristics previously found to limit use in the inpatient setting. However, limited technology experience and high illness severity were still barriers to frequent use. Future work should explore additional strategies, such as enrolling health care proxies and improving usability, to reduce potential disparities in portal use.

Keywords

health records - patient portals - informatics - patient engagement

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

This 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 Columbia University Medical Center Institutional Review Board.


Supplementary Material

 

  • References

  • 1 American Hospital Association. Individuals' ability to electronically access their hospital medical records, perform key tasks is growing. 2016. Available at: http://www.aha.org/research/reports/tw/16jul-tw-healthIT.pdf . Accessed December 12, 2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Adler-Milstein J, DesRoches CM, Kralovec P. , et al. Electronic health record adoption in us hospitals: progress continues, but challenges persist. Health Aff (Millwood) 2015; 34 (12) 2174-2180
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Adler-Milstein J, DesRoches CM, Furukawa MF. , et al. More than half of US hospitals have at least a basic EHR, but stage 2 criteria remain challenging for most. Health Aff (Millwood) 2014; 33 (09) 1664-1671
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med 1997; 44 (05) 681-692
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Berwick DM. Era 3 for medicine and health care. JAMA 2016; 315 (13) 1329-1330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Volpp KG, Mohta NS. Patient engagement survey: far to go to meaningful participation. NEJM Catal; 2016 . Available at: http://catalyst.nejm.org/patient-engagement-initiatives-survey-meaningful-participation/ . Accessed December 12, 2018
    PubMed
  • 7 2014 Edition EHR Certification Criteria Grid Mapped to Meaningful Use Stage 2. Available at: https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/2014editionehrcertificationcriteria_mustage2.pdf . Accessed December 12, 2018
    PubMed
  • 8 Ancker JS, Silver M, Kaushal R. Rapid growth in use of personal health records in New York, 2012–2013. J Gen Intern Med 2014; 29 (06) 850-854
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Undem T. Consumers and health information technology: a national survey. Oakland, CA; 2010. Available at: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Consumers+and+Health+Information+Technology+:+A+National+Survey#0 . Accessed December 12, 2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Halamka JD, Mandl KD, Tang PC. Early experiences with personal health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2008; 15 (01) 1-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Ancker JS, Hafeez B, Kaushal R. Socioeconomic disparities in adoption of personal health records over time. Am J Manag Care 2016; 22 (08) 539-540
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Patel V, Barker W, Siminerio E. ONC Data Brief No. 30: trends in consumer access and use of electronic health information. 2015 . Available at: https://dashboard.healthit.gov/evaluations/data-briefs/trends-consumer-access-use-electronic-health-information.php . Accessed December 12, 2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Patel V, Johnson C. ONC Data Brief No. 40: individuals' use of online medical records and technology for health needs. 2017. Available at: https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/page/2018-03/HINTS-2017-Consumer-Data-Brief-3.21.18.pdf . Accessed December 12, 2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Collins SA, Rozenblum R, Leung WY. , et al. Acute care patient portals: a qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives on current practices. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24 (e1): e9-e17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Grossman LV, Choi SW, Collins S. , et al. Implementation of acute care patient portals: recommendations on utility and use from six early adopters. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2018; 25 (04) 370-379
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Masterson Creber R, Prey J, Ryan B. , et al. Engaging hospitalized patients in clinical care: study protocol for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Contemp Clin Trials 2016; 47: 165-171
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Runaas L, Hanauer D, Maher M. , et al. BMT roadmap: a user-centered design health information technology tool to promote patient-centered care in pediatric hematopoietic cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2017; 23 (05) 813-819
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 McAlearney AS, Sieck CJ, Hefner JL. , et al. High touch and high tech (HT2) proposal: transforming patient engagement throughout the continuum of care by engaging patients with portal technology at the bedside. JMIR Res Protoc 2016; 5 (04) e221
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 O'Leary KJ, Lohman ME, Culver E, Killarney A, Randy Smith Jr G, Liebovitz DM. The effect of tablet computers with a mobile patient portal application on hospitalized patients' knowledge and activation. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016; 23 (01) 159-165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Winstanley EL, Burtchin M, Zhang Y. , et al. Inpatient experiences with MyChart Bedside. Telemed J E Health 2017; 23 (08) 691-693
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Prey JE, Restaino S, Vawdrey DK. Providing hospital patients with access to their medical records. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2014; 2014: 1884-1893
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Vawdrey DK, Wilcox LG, Collins SA. , et al. A tablet computer application for patients to participate in their hospital care. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2011; 2011: 1428-1435
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Caligtan CA, Carroll DL, Hurley AC, Gersh-Zaremski R, Dykes PC. Bedside information technology to support patient-centered care. Int J Med Inform 2012; 81 (07) 442-451
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Kelly MM, Hoonakker PLT, Dean SM. Using an inpatient portal to engage families in pediatric hospital care. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24 (01) 153-161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Larson CO, Nelson EC, Gustafson D, Batalden PB. The relationship between meeting patients' information needs and their satisfaction with hospital care and general health status outcomes. Int J Qual Heal Care 1996; 8 (05) 447-456
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Skeels M, Tan DS. Identifying opportunities for inpatient-centric technology. Proc ACM IHI 2010; 580-589
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Sarkar U, Karter AJ, Liu JY. , et al. The literacy divide: health literacy and the use of an internet-based patient portal in an integrated health system-results from the diabetes study of northern California (DISTANCE). J Health Commun 2010; 15 (Suppl. 02) 183-196
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Yamin CK, Emani S, Williams DH. , et al. The digital divide in adoption and use of a personal health record. Arch Intern Med 2011; 171 (06) 568-574
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 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. 01) i8-i12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Showell C. Barriers to the use of personal health records by patients: a structured review. Peer J 2017; 5: e3268
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Wildenbos GA, Peute L, Jaspers M. Facilitators and barriers of electronic health record patient portal adoption by older adults: a literature study. Stud Health Technol Inform 2017; 235: 308-312
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Irizarry T, DeVito Dabbs A, Curran CR. Patient portals and patient engagement: a state of the science review. J Med Internet Res 2015; 17 (06) e148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Robinson JR, Davis SE, Cronin RM, Jackson GP. Use of a patient portal during hospital admissions to surgical services. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2017; 2016: 1967-1976
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Aljabri D, Dumitrascu A, Burton MC. , et al. Patient portal adoption and use by hospitalized cancer patients: a retrospective study of its impact on adverse events, utilization, and patient satisfaction. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2018; 18 (01) 70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Davis SE, Osborn CY, Kripalani S, Goggins KM, Jackson GP. Health literacy, education levels, and patient portal usage during hospitalizations. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2015; 2015: 1871-1880
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Wolff JL, Berger A, Clarke D. , et al. Patients, care partners, and shared access to the patient portal: online practices at an integrated health system. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016; 23 (06) 1150-1158
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Lober WB, Zierler B, Herbaugh A. , et al. Barriers to the use of a personal health record by an elderly population. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2006; 2006: 514-518
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Hilton JF, Barkoff L, Chang O. , et al. A cross-sectional study of barriers to personal health record use among patients attending a safety-net clinic. PLoS One 2012; 7 (02) e31888
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Butler JM, Carter M, Hayden C. , et al. Understanding adoption of a personal health record in rural health care clinics: revealing barriers and facilitators of adoption including attributions about potential patient portal users and self-reported characteristics of early adopting users. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2013; 2013: 152-161
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Veinot TC, Mitchell H, Ancker JS. Good intentions are not enough: how informatics interventions can worsen inequality. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2018; 25 (08) 1080-1088
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Pew Research Center. 2018 Mobile Fact Sheet. 2018. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/ . Accessed August 20, 2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Pew Research Center. 2018 Internet/Broadband Fact Sheet. 2018 . Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/ . Accessed July 20, 2018
    PubMed
  • 44 Ancker JS, Nosal S, Hauser D, Way C, Calman N. Access policy and the digital divide in patient access to medical records. Health Policy Technol 2017; 6 (01) 3-11
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Casey I. The effect of education on portal personal health record use. Online J Nurs Inform 2016; 20 (02) 9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 McInnes DK, Solomon JL, Shimada SL. , et al. Development and evaluation of an internet and personal health record training program for low-income patients with HIV or hepatitis C. Med Care 2013; 51 (03) (Suppl. 01) S62-S66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Woollen J, Prey J, Wilcox L. , et al. Patient experiences using an inpatient personal health record. Appl Clin Inform 2016; 7 (02) 446-460
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Masterson Creber RM, Grossman LV, Ryan B. , et al. Engaging hospitalized patients with personalized health information: a randomized trial of an acute care patient portal. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2018 Doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocy146
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Chew LD, Bradley KA, Boyko EJ. Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy. Fam Med 2004; 36 (08) 588-594
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Hibbard JH, Mahoney ER, Stock R, Tusler M. Do increases in patient activation result in improved self-management behaviors?. Health Serv Res 2007; 42 (04) 1443-1463
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Hibbard JH, Greene J. What the evidence shows about patient activation: better health outcomes and care experiences; fewer data on costs. Health Aff (Millwood) 2013; 32 (02) 207-214
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Hibbard JH, Mahoney ER, Stockard J, Tusler M. Development and testing of a short form of the patient activation measure. Health Serv Res 2005; 40 (6, Pt 1): 1918-1930
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Hibbard JH. Using systematic measurement to target consumer activation strategies. Med Care Res Rev 2009; 66 (1, Suppl) 9S-27S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Fowles JB, Terry P, Xi M, Hibbard J, Bloom CT, Harvey L. Measuring self-management of patients' and employees' health: further validation of the Patient Activation Measure (PAM) based on its relation to employee characteristics. Patient Educ Couns 2009; 77 (01) 116-122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Greene J, Hibbard JH. Why does patient activation matter? An examination of the relationships between patient activation and health-related outcomes. J Gen Intern Med 2012; 27 (05) 520-526
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Hibbard JH, Greene J, Tusler M. Improving the outcomes of disease management by tailoring care to the patient's level of activation. Am J Manag Care 2009; 15 (06) 353-360
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Prey JE, Qian M, Restaino S. , et al. Reliability and validity of the patient activation measure in hospitalized patients. Patient Educ Couns 2016; 99 (12) 2026-2033
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Bakken S, Grullon-Figueroa L, Izquierdo R. , et al; IDEATel Consortium. Development, validation, and use of English and Spanish versions of the telemedicine satisfaction and usefulness questionnaire. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13 (06) 660-667
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Horn SD, Horn RA, Sharkey PD. The Severity of Illness Index as a severity adjustment to diagnosis-related groups. Health Care Financ Rev 1984; ;(Suppl): 33-45
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Averill RF, Goldfield NI, Muldoon J, Steinbeck BA, Grant TM. A closer look at all-patient refined DRGs. J AHIMA 2002; 73 (01) 46-50
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40 (05) 373-383
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI): SVI Data and Tools Download. 2018. Available at: https://svi.cdc.gov/data-and-tools-download.html . Accessed July 17, 2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Song M-K, Lin F-C, Ward SE, Fine JP. Composite variables: when and how. Nurs Res 2013; 62 (01) 45-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Bursac Z, Gauss CH, Williams DK, Hosmer DW. Purposeful selection of variables in logistic regression. Source Code Biol Med 2008; 3: 17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Calcagno V, De Mazancourt C. glmulti : An R Package for Easy Automated Model Selection with (Generalized) Linear Models. J Stat Softw 2010; 34 (12) 1-29
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Roblin DW, Houston II TK, Allison JJ, Joski PJ, Becker ER. Disparities in use of a personal health record in a managed care organization. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2009; 16 (05) 683-689
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Emani S, Yamin CK, Peters E. , et al. Patient perceptions of a personal health record: a test of the diffusion of innovation model. J Med Internet Res 2012; 14 (06) e150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Ali SB, Romero J, Morrison K, Hafeez B, Ancker JS. Focus section health IT usability: applying a task-technology fit model to adapt an electronic patient portal for patient work. Appl Clin Inform 2018; 9 (01) 174-184
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Walker DM, Menser T, Yen P-Y, McAlearney AS. Optimizing the user experience: identifying opportunities to improve use of an inpatient portal. Appl Clin Inform 2018; 9 (01) 105-113
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Bell SK, Mejilla R, Anselmo M. , et al. When doctors share visit notes with patients: a study of patient and doctor perceptions of documentation errors, safety opportunities and the patient-doctor relationship. BMJ Qual Saf 2017; 26 (04) 262-270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Chew S, Brewster L, Tarrant C, Martin G, Armstrong N. Fidelity or flexibility: an ethnographic study of the implementation and use of the Patient Activation Measure. Patient Educ Couns 2018; 101 (05) 932-937
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Ancker JS, Osorio SN, Cheriff A, Cole CL, Silver M, Kaushal R. Patient activation and use of an electronic patient portal. Inform Health Soc Care 2015; 40 (03) 254-266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Hibbard JH, Greene J. Who are we reaching through the patient portal: engaging the already engaged?. Int J Pers Cent Med 2011; 1 (04) 788-792
    PubMedGoogle Scholar