Patients' Access to Their Health Information A Meaningful-Use Mandate

Author Affiliations: Director of Masters Program (Dr Wilson), Assistant Professors (Drs Wilson and Murphy), Director of Health Services, Leadership and Management (Dr Murphy), and Chair and Professor of Organizational Systems and Adult Health (Dr Newhouse), School of Nursing, University of Maryland Baltimore.
The Journal of nursing administration (Impact Factor: 1.27). 11/2012; 42(11):493-6. DOI: 10.1097/NNA.0b013e3182714538
Source: PubMed


This department highlights topics in nursing outcomes, research, and evidence-based practice relevant to nurse administrators. In this article, the authors describe patient access to personal health information as it relates to the meaningful-use requirement, technologies that have been used to enhance patient engagement, and the nursing leadership implications.

Download full-text


Available from: Lyn Stankiewicz Murphy, Dec 17, 2014
1 Follower
43 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To achieve the goal of comprehensive health information record keeping and exchange among providers and patients, hospitals must have functioning electronic health record systems that contain patient demographics, care histories, lab results, and more. Using national survey data on US hospitals from 2011, the year federal incentives for the meaningful use of electronic health records began, we found that the share of hospitals with any electronic health record system increased from 15.1 percent in 2010 to 26.6 percent in 2011, and the share with a comprehensive system rose from 3.6 percent to 8.7 percent. The proportion able to meet our proxy criteria for meaningful use also rose; in 2011, 18.4 percent of hospitals had these functions in place in at least one unit and 11.2 percent had them across all clinical units. However, gaps in rates of adoption of at least a basic record system have increased substantially over the past four years based on hospital size, teaching status, and location. Small, nonteaching, and rural hospitals continue to adopt electronic health record systems more slowly than other types of hospitals. In sum, this is mixed news for policy makers, who should redouble their efforts among hospitals that appear to be moving slowly and ensure that policies do not further widen gaps in adoption. A more robust infrastructure for information exchange needs to be developed, and possibly a special program for the sizable minority of hospitals that have almost no health information technology at all.
    Health Affairs 04/2012; 31(5):1092-9. DOI:10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0153 · 4.97 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An unprecedented federal effort is under way to boost the adoption of electronic health records and spur innovation in health care delivery. We reviewed the recent literature on health information technology to determine its effect on outcomes, including quality, efficiency, and provider satisfaction. We found that 92 percent of the recent articles on health information technology reached conclusions that were positive overall. We also found that the benefits of the technology are beginning to emerge in smaller practices and organizations, as well as in large organizations that were early adopters. However, dissatisfaction with electronic health records among some providers remains a problem and a barrier to achieving the potential of health information technology. These realities highlight the need for studies that document the challenging aspects of implementing health information technology more specifically and how these challenges might be addressed.
    Health Affairs 03/2011; 30(3):464-71. DOI:10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0178 · 4.97 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a prevalent debilitating long term condition. It is the second most common cause of emergency admission to hospital in the UK and remains one of the most costly conditions to treat through acute care.Tele-health monitoring offers potential to reduce the rates of re-hospitalisation and emergency department visits and improve quality of life for people with COPD. However, the current evidence base to support technology adoption and implementation is limited and the resource implications for implementing tele-health in practice can be very high. This trial will employ tele-health monitoring in a preventative capacity for patients diagnosed with early stage COPD following discharge from hospital to determine whether it reduces their need for additional health service support or hospital admission and improves their quality of life. We describe a pilot study for a two arm, one site randomized controlled trial (RCT) to determine the effect of tele-health monitoring on self-management, quality of life and patient satisfaction. Sixty patients who have been discharged from one acute trust with a primary diagnosis of COPD and who have agreed to receive community clinical support following discharge from acute care will be randomly assigned to one of two groups: (a) Tele-health supported Community COPD Service; or (b) Usual Care. The tele-health supported service involves the patient receiving two home visits with a specialist COPD clinician (nurse or physiotherapist) then participating in daily tele-monitoring over an eight week period. Usual care consists of six home visits to the patient by specialist COPD clinicians again over eight successive weeks. Health status and quality of life data for all participants will be measured at baseline, on discharge from the service and at six months post discharge from the service. The tele-health service under study is a complex service delivered through a collaboration between local authority and health care partners. The implementation of this service demanded significant changes to established working patterns and has been a challenging process requiring considerable planning - a challenge that many providers are likely to face in the future. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN68856013.
    Trials 01/2011; 12:6. DOI:10.1186/1745-6215-12-6 · 1.73 Impact Factor