Personal Health Records for Patients with Chronic Disease

Summary

Background: Personal health records (PHRs) connected to a physician’s electronic health record system hold substantial promise for supporting and engaging patients with chronic disease. Objectives: To explore how U.S. health care organizations are currently utilizing PHRs for chronic disease populations.

Methods: A mixed methods study including semi-structured interviews and a questionnaire was conducted. A purposive sample was developed of health care organizations which were recognized as exemplars for PHRs and were high performers in national patient satisfaction surveys (H-CAHPS or CAHPS). Within each organization, participants were health IT leaders or those managing high-risk or chronic disease populations.

Results: Interviews were conducted with 30 informants and completed questionnaires were received from 16 organizations (84% response rate). Most PHRs allowed patients to access health records and educational material, message their provider, renew prescriptions and request appointments. Patient generated data was increasingly being sought and combined with messaging, resulted in greater understanding of patient health and functioning outside of the clinic visit. However for chronic disease populations, there was little targeted involvement in PHR design and few tools to help interpret and manage their conditions beyond those offered for all. The PHR was largely uncoupled from high risk population management interventions and no clear framework for future PHR development emerged.

Conclusion: This technology is currently underutilized and represents a major opportunity given the potential benefits of patient engagement and shared decision making. A coherent patient-centric PHR design and evaluation strategy is required to realize its potential and maximize this natural hub for multidisciplinary care co-ordination.

Citation: Wells S, Rozenblum R, Park A, Dunn M, Bates DW. Personal health records for patients with chronic disease: A major opportunity. Appl Clin Inf 2014; 5: 416–429 http://dx.doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2014-01-RA-0002

Keywords

Personal health records - electronic health records - chronic disease - adoption

• References

• 1 US Department of Human and Health Services.. HHS Initiative on Multiple Chronic Conditions. Secondary HHS Initiative on Multiple Chronic Conditions 2012. http://www.hhs.gov/ash/initiatives/mcc/.
• 2 Gerteis M, Edgman-Levitan S, Daley J, Delbanco T. Through the Patient’s Eyes: Understanding and Promoting Patient-centered Care. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,; 1993
• 3 Hibbard JH, Greene J. What the evidence shows about patient activation: better health outcomes and care experiences; fewer data on costs. Health Affairs 2013; 32 (Suppl. 02) 207-214.
• 4 Legare F, Witteman HO. Shared decision making: examining key elements and barriers to adoption into routine clinical practice. Health Affairs 2013; 32 (Suppl. 02) 276-284.
• 5 Charmel P, Frampton S. Building the business case for patient centered care. Healthcare Financial Management 2008; 62: 80-85.
• 6 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.. Stage 1 vs Stage 2 comparison table for eligible professionals. Secondary Stage 1 vs Stage 2 comparison table for eligible professionals 2012. https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/Downloads/Stage1vsStage2CompTablesforEP.pdf.
• 7 Fox S, Purcell K. Chronic disease and the Internet. http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Chronic-Disease.aspx Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2010.
• 8 Zickhur K, Smith A. Digital differences. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Digital-differences.aspx Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2012.
• 9 Hsu J, Huang J, Kinsman J, Fireman B, Miller R, Selby J, Ortiz E. Use of e-Health services between 1999 and 2002: a growing digital divide. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2005; 12 (Suppl. 02) 164-171.
• 10 Yamin CK, Emani S, Williams DH, Lipsitz SR, Karson AS, Wald JS, Bates DW. The digital divide in adoption and use of a personal health record. Archives of Internal Medicine 2011; 171 (Suppl. 06) 568-574.
• 11 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.. HCAHPS: Patients’ Perspectives of Care Survey. Secondary HCAHPS: Patients’ Perspectives of Care Survey 2012. http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/HospitalQualityInits/HospitalHCAHPS.html.
• 12 Sofaer S. Qualitative methods: what are they and why use them?. Health Services Research 1999; 34 5 Pt 2 1101-1118.
• 13 Rozenblum R, Jang Y, Zimlichman E, Salzberg C, Tamblyn M, Buckeridge D, Forster A, Bates DW, Tamblyn R. A qualitative study of Canada’s experience with the implementation of electronic health information technology. CMAJ Canadian Medical Association Journal 2011; 183 (Suppl. 05) E281-288.
• 14 Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. California: Sage Publications,; 1990
• 15 Bates DW, Wells S. Personal health records and health care utilization. JAMA 2012; 308 (19) 2034-6
• 16 Winkelman WJ, Leonard KJ, Rossos PG. Patient-perceived usefulness of online electronic medical records: employing grounded theory in the development of information and communication technologies for use by patients living with chronic illness. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2005; 12 (Suppl. 03) 306-314.
• 17 Venkatesh V, Morris M, Davis G, Davis F. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 2003; 27 (Suppl. 03) 425-478.
• 18 Winkelman WJ, Leonard KJ. Overcoming structural constraints to patient utilization of electronic medical records: a critical review and proposal for an evaluation framework. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2004; 11 (Suppl. 02) 151-161.
• 19 Bernabeo E, Holmboe ES. Patients, providers, and systems need to acquire a specific set of competencies to achieve truly patient-centered care. Health Affairs 2013; 32 (Suppl. 02) 250-258.
• 20 Earnest MA, Ross SE, Wittevrongel L, Moore LA, Lin C-T. Use of a patient-accessible electronic medical record in a practice for congestive heart failure: patient and physician experiences. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2004; 11 (Suppl. 05) 410-417.
• 21 Nazi KM. Veterans’ voices: use of the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) Survey to identify My HealtheVet personal health record users’ characteristics, needs, and preferences. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2010; 17 (Suppl. 02) 203-211.
• 22 Ralston JD, Revere D, Robins LS, Goldberg HI. Patients’ experience with a diabetes support programme based on an interactive electronic medical record: qualitative study. BMJ 2004; 328 7449 1159.
• 23 Siek KA, Khan DU, Ross SE, Haverhals LM, Meyers J, Cali SR. Designing a personal health application for older adults to manage medications: a comprehensive case study. Journal of Medical Systems 2011; 35 (Suppl. 05) 1099-1121.
• 24 Ancker JS, Barron Y, Rockoff ML, Hauser D, Pichardo M, Szerencsy A, Calman N. Use of an electronic patient portal among disadvantaged populations. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2011; 26 (10) 1117-1123.
• 25 Goel MS, Brown TL, Williams A, Hasnain-Wynia R, Thompson JA, Baker DW. Disparities in enrollment and use of an electronic patient portal. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2011; 26 (10) 1112-1116.
• 26 Lyles CR, Harris LT, Jordan L, Grothaus L, Wehnes L, Reid RJ, Ralston JD. Patient race/ethnicity and shared medical record use among diabetes patients. Medical Care 2012; 50 (Suppl. 05) 434-440.
• 27 Roblin DW, Houston TK, 2nd Allison JJ, Joski PJ, Becker ER. Disparities in use of a personal health record in a managed care organization. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2009; 16 (Suppl. 05) 683-689.
• 28 Sarkar U, Karter AJ, Liu JY, Adler NE, Nguyen R, Lopez A, Schillinger D. Social disparities in internet patient portal use in diabetes: evidence that the digital divide extends beyond access. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2011; 18 (Suppl. 03) 318-321.
• 29 Collins SA, Vawdrey DK, Kukafka R, Kuperman GJ. Policies for patient access to clinical data via PHRs: current state and recommendations. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2011; 18 (Suppl. 01) i2-i7.
• 30 Reti SR, Feldman HJ, Safran C. Governance for personal health records. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2009; 16 (Suppl. 01) 14-17.
• 31 Reti SR, Feldman HJ, Ross SE, Safran C. Improving personal health records for patient-centered care. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2010; 17 (Suppl. 02) 192-195.
• 32 Delbanco T, Walker J, Bell SK, Darer JD, Elmore JG, Farag N, Feldman HJ, Mejilla R, Ngo L, Ralston JD, Ross SE, Trivedi N, Vodicka E, Leveille SG. Inviting Patients to Read Their Doctors’ Notes: A Quasi-experimental Study and a Look Ahead. Annals of Internal Medicine 2012; 157 (Suppl. 07) 461-470 doi: 10.7326/0003–4819–157–7–201210020-00002.
• 33 Blumenthal D, Tavenner M. The „meaningful use“ regulation for electronic health records. New England Journal of Medicine 2010; 363 (Suppl. 06) 501-504.
• 34 Goldzweig C, Towfigh A, Paige N, Orshansky G, Haggstrom D, Beroes J, Miake-Lye I, Shekelle P. Systematic Review: Secure Messaging Between Providers and Patients, and Patients’ Access to Their Own Medical Record: Evidence on Health Outcomes, Satisfaction, Efficiency and Attitudes VA-ESP Project #05–226. Washington: Department of Veterans Affairs; 2012
• 35 Ahern DK, Woods SS, Lightowler MC, Finley SW, Houston TK. Promise of and potential for patient-facing technologies to enable meaningful use. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2011; 40 (5 (Suppl. 2) S162-S172
• 36 Kaelber DC, Jha AK, Johnston D, Middleton B, Bates DW. A research agenda for personal health records (PHRs). Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2008; 15 (Suppl. 06) 729-736.