Article

An effort to improve electronic health record medication list accuracy between visits: Patients' and physicians' response

Partners HealthCare System Inc., Information Systems, 93 Worcester St. Suite 201, Wellesley, MA 02481, USA.
International Journal of Medical Informatics (Impact Factor: 2.72). 04/2008; 77(3):153-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2007.03.001
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To evaluate the efficacy of a secure web-based patient portal called Patient Gateway (PG) in producing more accurate medication lists in the electronic health record (EHR), and whether sending primary care physicians (PCPs) a clinical message updating them on the information their patients provided caused physicians to update the EHR medication list.
We compared the medication list accuracy of 84 patients using PG with that of 79 who were not. Patient-reported medication discrepancies were noted in the EHR in a clinical note by research staff and a message was sent to the participants' PCPs notifying them of the updated information.
Participants were taking 665 medications according to the EHR, and reported 273 additional medications. A lower percentage of PG users' drug regimens (54% versus 61%, p=0.07) were reported to be correct than those of PG non-users, although PG users took significantly more medications than their non-user counterparts (5.0 versus 3.1 medications, p=0.0001). Providing patient-reported information in a clinical note and sending a clinical message to the primary care doctor did not result in PCPs updating their patients' EHR medication lists.
Medication lists in EHRs were frequently inaccurate and most frequently overlooked over-the-counter (OTC) and non-prescription drugs. Patients using a secure portal had just as many discrepancies between medication lists and self-report as those who did not, and notifying physicians of discrepancies via e-mail had no effect.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: David W Bates, Aug 12, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
211 Views
  • Source
    • "Several papers mainly deal with the examination of small and specialized Consumer Healthcare systems (Cimino et al., 2002; Gustafson et al., 2002; Staroselsky et al., 2006; Reidl et al., 2008; Staroselsky et al., 2008; Britto et al., 2009) and derive factors which can improve acceptance and use by patients, or try to achieve this on purely theoretical grounds (Haux, 2006; Goth, 2008; Keselman et al., 2008; Mulder et al., 2009). The resulting factors are manifold and include, for example, ubiquity, intuitive usability, accessibility, and comprehensibility. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Consumer Healthcare empowers patients to gather information on their health state. Ideally, this is accomplished by improving the integration of existing databases and the communication of information to patients and, on demand, to care providers. Furthermore, networking of existing and new health management systems as well as a pervasive system design are essential. Consumer Healthcare services are used voluntarily and leave patients in control of their medical data. In this study, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of Consumer Healthcare articles published in leading journals in the information systems and medical informatics disciplines. This article provides a survey of the literature of this emerging field by addressing specific topics of application settings, systems features, and deployment experiences. We identified 64 articles and categorized them into four research fields (basic research, information and recommendation systems, devices, personal health records). In this article, we provide both an overview and an analysis of the literature on a broad and heterogeneous range of systems. Furthermore, we suggest areas for further research, especially on the deployment of consumer healthcare systems.
    e-Service Journal 01/2014; 9(2):1-23. DOI:10.2979/eservicej.9.2.1
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: A systematic review of evaluations of innovative eHealth implementations was funded by the New Zealand Ministry of Health to inform information strategy. A key trend of interest to the Ministry was person-centered healthcare, including systems where health consumers use health information technology (IT) directly. Herein we report, analyze and reflect on the review findings with respect to such systems. Objectives: To review the nature and extent of known successes of health IT with consumers as users. Methods: Queries for evaluations of innovative eHealth implementations were submitted to MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Business Source Premier for articles appearing between 2003 and early 2009 and filtered on inclusion criteria of reporting actual implementations (i.e., use), innovativeness, evaluation (interpreted generously) and scaleability. Substitutions were made where more recent superior studies of the same or closely related projects could be found. Results: 100 of 1413 retrieved articles met the inclusion criteria; 47 of these involved consumers as users of a component of the evaluated system. Systems that provided messaging between the patient and their regular care provider met with satisfaction and good uptake. There were improved chronic disease outcomes in 11 of 15 education / self-management systems and 2 of 3 home telemonitoring systems where measurement of such outcomes was reported; a further 3 systems targeting the family members of individuals with chronic conditions as principal users all showed positive well-being outcomes for the caregivers. Conclusions: There have been a number of demonstrated instances of clear successes in both uptake and outcome for health IT interventions involving consumers as users, particularly for chronic condition management. However, compelling demonstrations (in terms of methods and sample size) remain isolated. More study is needed to assess the transferability of the demonstrated successes to greater scale, diverse contexts of deployment and to other conditions. Better keywords and more systematic reporting, particularly with respect to implementation and evaluation status, would aid similar reviews in the future.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recommendations for routine laboratory monitoring to reduce the risk of adverse medication events are not consistently followed. We evaluated the impact of electronic reminders delivered to primary care physicians on rates of appropriate routine medication laboratory monitoring. We enrolled 303 primary care physicians caring for 1,922 patients across 20 ambulatory clinics that had at least one overdue routine laboratory test for a given medication between January and June 2004. Clinics were randomized so that physicians received either usual care or electronic reminders at the time of office visits focused on potassium, creatinine, liver function, thyroid function, and therapeutic drug levels. Primary outcomes were the receipt of recommended laboratory monitoring within 14 days following an outpatient clinic visit. The effect of the intervention was assessed for each reminder after adjusting for clustering within clinics, as well as patient and provider characteristics. Medication-laboratory monitoring non-compliance ranged from 1.6% (potassium monitoring with potassium-supplement use) to 6.3% (liver function monitoring with HMG CoA Reductase Inhibitor use). Rates of appropriate laboratory monitoring following an outpatient visit ranged from 14% (therapeutic drug levels) to 64% (potassium monitoring with potassium-sparing diuretic use). Reminders for appropriate laboratory monitoring had no impact on rates of receiving appropriate testing for creatinine, potassium, liver function, renal function, or therapeutic drug level monitoring. We identified high rates of appropriate laboratory monitoring, and electronic reminders did not significantly improve these monitoring rates. Future studies should focus on settings with lower baseline adherence rates and alternate drug-laboratory combinations.
    Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 04/2008; 15(4):424-9. DOI:10.1197/jamia.M2602 · 3.93 Impact Factor
Show more