If you build it, they may not come: modifiable barriers to patient portal use among pre- and post-kidney transplant patients

Electronic health record-integrated questionnaires in colorectal surgery patients as a new standard: Could preoperative bowel function be used to predict postoperative patient-reported outcomes?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Patient-reported bowel function has been previously shown to correlate with quality of life and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after colorectal surgery. We examined the relationship between preoperative patient-reported bowel function and postoperative symptom reporting using an electronic health record-integrated symptom management (eSyM).

METHODS

Patients who underwent major abdominal surgery for colorectal cancer at a single institution were included. Preoperative bowel function was assessed prospectively using the validated colorectal functional outcome (COREFO) questionnaire. Patients with electronic portal access received automated eSyM questionnaires after discharge. Logistic regression was used to analyze the association between COREFO scores and eSyM use.

RESULTS

169 patients underwent surgery between April 2020 and June 2022 (median age 64, 46.7% female). 148 completed COREFO questionnaires preoperatively; 54 (36.5%) had scores ≥15. Of the 108 patients with portal access, 67.6% used eSyM postoperatively. Among users, 72.3% (47/73) reported severe symptoms. Those with COREFO scores ≥15 were more likely to use eSyM (80.0% vs. 62.7%) though this difference was not significant (p = 0.079).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that eSyM utilization regardless of preoperative baseline bowel function was high in this cohort of colorectal surgery patients. This suggests that electronically captured PROs is an effective way for patients to communicate symptoms to their care teams in a postsurgical setting.

Evaluation of Experiences and Attitudes of Patients Towards Patient Portal-Enabled Access to Their Health Information or Medical Records: A Qualitative Grounded Theory Study

The demand for patient-centred care and patient engagement in their healthcare has driven patient portal introduction. The widespread adoption and use of patient portals, however, has been a rather slow process in the United Kingdom. Hence, a limited number of studies have explored patient perceptions and experiences of general portal use, which forms a foundation for successful implementation of a portal. This study, therefore, focuses on the experiences and attitudes of patients regarding use of patient portals and access to their health information. It further explores various factors perceived by patients that may influence portal use and uptake. The overall findings from this study highlight positive patient perceptions of portal use. Nevertheless, it demonstrates various areas of improvement essential to ensure future success of portal implementation and acceptance.

Post-transplant education for kidney recipients and their caregivers

Successful outcomes in pediatric kidney transplantation require the involvement of the transplant team as well as recipients and their caregivers. Enhancing patient and family understanding of the disease and of post-transplant care can result in improved adherence and outcomes. Educational strategies should aim to be broad, understandable, innovative, and inclusive while maintaining a tailored approach to individualized care. Teaching should not be viewed as a one-time event but rather as an ongoing conversation throughout the duration of care, emphasizing different aspects throughout the patient's various developmental stages. The following review article discusses the content and methods of post-transplant education.

The Relationship Between Health Literacy and Outcomes Before and After Kidney Transplantation

Limited health literacy (HL) is associated with decreased kidney function and death in patients with chronic kidney disease. Less is known about the impact of HL on kidney transplant (KT) outcomes. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between HL and KT outcomes, including rates of waitlisting, healthcare utilization, acute rejection, renal allograft function, renal allograft failure, and death.

Methods

We performed a retrospective review of HL data previously collected at our center. HL was assessed in a convenience sample of consecutive, English-speaking patients age ≥18 y who were evaluated for KT at Mayo Clinic in Minnesota between June 2015 and March 2017 as part of a practice improvement feasibility project (n = 690). HL was assessed using the 4-item Brief Health Literacy Screening Tool modified for the outpatient KT evaluation process. The 4 items assess confidence completing forms, reading comprehension, and oral literacy.

Results

Overall, 30.4% of patients had limited or marginal HL. Patients with limited or marginal HL were less likely than those with adequate HL to be waitlisted for KT (hazard ratio = 0.62 and 0.69, respectively), even after adjusting for age, marital status, body mass index, Charlson comorbidity index, or dialysis dependency. Patient HL was not associated with post-KT healthcare utilization, acute rejection, or renal allograft function. Patients with limited or marginal HL appeared to experience a higher risk of renal allograft failure and post-KT death, but the number of events was small, and the relationship was statistically significant only for marginal HL.

Conclusions

Inadequate HL is common in KT candidates and independently associated with decreased waitlisting for KT. We observed no statistically significant relationship between HL and posttransplant outcomes in our cohort. Further efforts to improve communication in patients with inadequate HL may improve access to KT.

Using a Patient Portal to Increase Enrollment in a Newborn Screening Research Study: Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Many research studies fail to enroll enough research participants. Patient-facing electronic health record applications, known as patient portals, may be used to send research invitations to eligible patients.

OBJECTIVE

The first aim was to determine if receipt of a patient portal research recruitment invitation was associated with enrollment in a large ongoing study of newborns (Early Check). The second aim was to determine if there were differences in opening the patient portal research recruitment invitation and study enrollment by race and ethnicity, age, or rural/urban home address.

METHODS

We used a computable phenotype and queried the health care system's clinical data warehouse to identify women whose newborns would likely be eligible. Research recruitment invitations were sent through the women's patient portals. We conducted logistic regressions to test whether women enrolled their newborns after receipt of a patient portal invitation and whether there were differences by race and ethnicity, age, and rural/urban home address.

RESULTS

Research recruitment invitations were sent to 4510 women not yet enrolled through their patient portals between November 22, 2019, through March 5, 2020. Among women who received a patient portal invitation, 3.6% (161/4510) enrolled their newborns within 27 days. The odds of enrolling among women who opened the invitation was nearly 9 times the odds of enrolling among women who did not open their invitation (SE 3.24, OR 8.86, 95% CI 4.33-18.13; P<.001). On average, it took 3.92 days for women to enroll their newborn in the study, with 64% (97/161) enrolling their newborn within 1 day of opening the invitation. There were disparities by race and urbanicity in enrollment in the study after receipt of a patient portal research invitation but not by age. Black women were less likely to enroll their newborns than White women (SE 0.09, OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.16-0.55; P<.001), and women in urban zip codes were more likely to enroll their newborns than women in rural zip codes (SE 0.97, OR 3.03, 95% CI 1.62-5.67; P=.001). Black women (SE 0.05, OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.57-0.78; P<.001) and Hispanic women (SE 0.07, OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60-0.89; P=.002) were less likely to open the research invitation compared to White women.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient portals are an effective way to recruit participants for research studies, but there are substantial racial and ethnic disparities and disparities by urban/rural status in the use of patient portals, the opening of a patient portal invitation, and enrollment in the study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03655223; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03655223.

Designing an App for Immunosuppression Adherence and Communication: A Qualitative Approach

Background:

Immunosuppression nonadherence may be the most important factor limiting long-term allograft survival.

Objective:

Following user-centered design, we explored the essential priorities and preferences of kidney transplant recipients and healthcare providers (HCP) to inform development of a smartphone app to improve immunosuppression adherence and communication.

Design:

A qualitative descriptive research design was used.

Setting:

The University of Alberta Hospital adult kidney transplant program in Edmonton, Canada.

Participants:

Participants were recruited by convenience sampling and included 32 kidney transplant recipients and 11 HCPs.

Methods:

Seven focus groups (5 with recipients and 2 with HCPs) were conducted to inform app development. Sessions were recorded, and transcripts were coded to elucidate themes.

Results:

App development to improve adherence was not a priority for HCP. Recipients prioritized choice: that all features be optional. Recipients preferred support while traveling; access to laboratory results; and use by younger or newly transplanted recipients. Both recipients and HCP preferred linkage to pharmacy; and self-management and accountability. For the app to improve communication, HCPs believed the priorities to be addressed included: clarity on scope of app; legal, ethical, and professional obligations; and charting. Both recipients and HCP prioritized HCP workload, and broader medication and health concerns. Healthcare providers preferred tech support; both recipients and HCPs preferred app access for nontransplant HCP.

Limitations:

Limitations include underrepresentation of physicians, recipients with racial/ethnic diversity, and potential selection bias of transplant recipients who perceived themselves to be adhering to immunosuppression medications.

Conclusion:

Future research is needed for the app to become a comprehensive, secure platform for broader communication between recipients and HCP, pharmacies, and nontransplant clinicians while streamlining HCP workload.

Online patient portal use by caregivers in pediatric oncology: Are we widening sociodemographic disparities?

BACKGROUND

Financial and regulatory incentives have encouraged and increased the availability of online patient portals that provide caregivers access to their child's electronic health records (EHR). Such access is believed to promote better engagement and outcomes of care. Little is known about the use of portals by caregivers of children with cancer. This study sought to examine whether sociodemographic and clinical care variables are associated with portal activation in a pediatric oncology sample.

METHODS

Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were extracted from the EHR of pediatric oncology patients treated for their first cancer in the Nemours Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders between 2012 and 2017. A Child Opportunity Index (COI) was calculated based on home zip code. Characteristics of children whose caregivers did and did not activate the portal were compared.

RESULTS

Sixty-six percent of caregivers activated a portal account with a peak within 90 days of diagnosis. In logistic regression, caregivers with a younger aged child, spoke English, lived closer to the hospital, lived in higher COI area, with longer treatment length, and more radiology tests had greater odds of portal activation. Those with private health insurance or White race were overrepresented among those who activated an account in univariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

The majority of caregivers of children with cancer activate portal accounts; however, differences in sociodemographic and clinical variables across those who did and did not activate accounts emerged. As portals become ubiquitous, we must understand how they are used and mitigate widening inequities caused by disparate portal use.

Voicing Individual Concerns for Engagement in Hemodialysis (VOICE-HD): A Mixed Method, Randomized Pilot Trial of Digital Health in Dialysis Care Delivery

BACKGROUND

People receiving in-center hemodialysis (HD) have prioritized the need for more individualized health information and better communication with nephrologists. The most common setting for patient-nephrologist interactions is during the HD treatment, which is a time pressured setting that lacks privacy.

OBJECTIVE

To facilitate effective communication in the hemodialysis (HD) unit, we evaluated the usability of a web application (web app) from both the patient and physician perspective. The main aim of the web app was to support patients in prioritizing their dialysis concerns outside of the clinical HD encounter.

DESIGN

Mixed method, parallel arm, multi-site, pilot randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Two outpatient Canadian HD centers.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients receiving in-center HD and their attending nephrologists.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to either a web application or an active control (paper form) for logging concerns to be addressed at weekly encounters with the nephrologist over 8 weeks. Topics included: HD treatment, symptoms, modality, and medications. The primary outcome was usability, defined as effectiveness (engagement with the tool, frequency of submitted concerns, whether the concern was satisfactorily addressed) and satisfaction with the tool using a priori thresholds and explored in interviews with patients and nephrologists.

RESULTS

77 patients (30 women, median age 61, interquartile range [53,67], median 2 years [1,4] on dialysis) and 19 nephrologists (4 women, median age 46 [36,65]) were enrolled. Patient use of a digital device at baseline was low (20%). Engagement with the tool was 70% (web app) and 100% (paper) with a lower proportion of patients in the web app group submitting at least one concern over 8 weeks compared to the paper form group: 56.7% vs 87.9%. Weekly concerns were satisfactorily addressed in both groups and ≥70% of patients would continue to use the tools. For patients, both tools promoted preparation and participation in the encounter; however, only the web app facilitated greater privacy in relaying concerns. For most nephrologists, the tools were disruptive to their workflow and were perceived as unnecessary given existing processes and familiarity with patients. For future versions of the app, patients suggested more features to facilitate self-management and nephrologists suggested integration with health databases and multidisciplinary teams.

LIMITATIONS

Tertiary setting may limit generalizability.

CONCLUSIONS

Both tools promoted fundamental components of self-management; however, patients in the paper form group submitted concerns more often and this tool was easier to remember to use. Although modifications would likely enhance web app usability, successful future adoption is limited by physician acceptance.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03605875.

Patient-Level Factors Associated with Utilization of Telemedicine Services from a Free Clinic During COVID-19

Background: Disparities in telemedicine use by race, age, and income have been consistently documented. To date, research has focused on telemedicine use among patients with adequate insurance coverage. To address this gap, this study identifies patient-level factors associated with telemedicine use during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic among one free clinic network's patients who are underinsured or uninsured. Materials and Methods: Electronic health record data were reviewed for patient-level data on patients seen from March 2020 to September 2020. Patients were grouped by telemedicine use history. We controlled for sociodemographic factors (e.g., age, race/ethnicity) and comorbidities. Logistic regression analyses were conducted. Results: Across 198 adult patients, 56.6% received telemedicine care. Of these, 99.1% elected for audio-only telemedicine instead of video telemedicine. Telemedicine use was more likely among those living within 15 miles of their clinic (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 4.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.70-11.53). It was less likely to be used by older patients (aOR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.94-1.00), patients of male sex (aOR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.18-0.92), and those establishing care as a new patient (aOR = 0.01, 95% CI 0.00-0.07). Conclusion: The moderate usage of telemedicine suggests that its implementation in free clinics may be feasible. Solutions specific to patients with smartphone-only internet access are needed to improve the use of video telemedicine as smartphone-specific factors (e.g., data use limits) may influence the ability for underserved patients to receive video telemedicine.

Quantifying Patient Portal Use: Systematic Review of Utilization Metrics

BACKGROUND

Use of patient portals has been associated with positive outcomes in patient engagement and satisfaction. Portal studies have also connected portal use, as well as the nature of users' interactions with portals, and the contents of their generated data to meaningful cost and quality outcomes. Incentive programs in the United States have encouraged uptake of health information technology, including patient portals, by setting standards for meaningful use of such technology. However, despite widespread interest in patient portal use and adoption, studies on patient portals differ in actual metrics used to operationalize and track utilization, leading to unsystematic and incommensurable characterizations of use. No known review has systematically assessed the measurements used to investigate patient portal utilization.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to apply systematic review criteria to identify and compare methods for quantifying and reporting patient portal use.

METHODS

Original studies with quantifiable metrics of portal use published in English between 2014 and the search date of October 17, 2018, were obtained from PubMed using the Medical Subject Heading term "Patient Portals" and related keyword searches. The first search round included full text review of all results to confirm a priori data charting elements of interest and suggest additional categories inductively; this round was supplemented by the retrieval of works cited in systematic reviews (based on title screening of all citations). An additional search round included broader keywords identified during the full-text review of the first round. Second round results were screened at abstract level for inclusion and confirmed by at least two raters. Included studies were analyzed for metrics related to basic use/adoption, frequency of use, duration metrics, intensity of use, and stratification of users into "super user" or high utilizers. Additional categories related to provider (including care team/administrative) use of the portal were identified inductively. Additional analyses included metrics aligned with meaningful use stage 2 (MU-2) categories employed by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the association between the number of portal metrics examined and the number of citations and the journal impact factor.

RESULTS

Of 315 distinct search results, 87 met the inclusion criteria. Of the a priori metrics, plus provider use, most studies included either three (26 studies, 30%) or four (23 studies, 26%) metrics. Nine studies (10%) only reported the patient use/adoption metric and only one study (1%) reported all six metrics. Of the US-based studies (n=76), 18 (24%) were explicitly motivated by MU-2 compliance; 40 studies (53%) at least mentioned these incentives, but only 6 studies (8%) presented metrics from which compliance rates could be inferred. Finally, the number of metrics examined was not associated with either the number of citations or the publishing journal's impact factor.

CONCLUSIONS

Portal utilization measures in the research literature can fall below established standards for "meaningful" or they can substantively exceed those standards in the type and number of utilization properties measured. Understanding how patient portal use has been defined and operationalized may encourage more consistent, well-defined, and perhaps more meaningful standards for utilization, informing future portal development.

Patient Portal Barriers and Group Differences: Cross-Sectional National Survey Study

BACKGROUND

Past studies examining barriers to patient portal adoption have been conducted with a small number of patients and health care settings, limiting generalizability.

OBJECTIVE

This study had the following two objectives: (1) to assess the prevalence of barriers to patient portal adoption among nonadopters and (2) to examine the association between nonadopter characteristics and reported barriers in a nationally representative sample.

METHODS

Data from this study were obtained from the 2019 Health Information National Trends Survey. We calculated descriptive statistics to determine the most prevalent barriers and conducted multiple variable logistic regression analysis to examine which characteristics were associated with the reported barriers.

RESULTS

The sample included 4815 individuals. Among these, 2828 individuals (58.73%) had not adopted a patient portal. Among the nonadopters (n=2828), the most prevalent barriers were patient preference for in-person communication (1810/2828, 64.00%), no perceived need for the patient portal (1385/2828, 48.97%), and lack of comfort and experience with computers (735/2828, 25.99%). Less commonly, individuals reported having no patient portal (650/2828, 22.98%), no internet access (650/2828, 22.98%), privacy concerns (594/2828, 21.00%), difficulty logging on (537/2828, 18.99%), and multiple patient portals (255/2828, 9.02%) as barriers. Men had significantly lower odds of indicating a preference for speaking directly to a provider compared with women (odds ratio [OR] 0.75, 95% CI 0.60-0.94; P=.01). Older age (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02; P<.001), having a chronic condition (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.44-2.33; P<.001), and having an income lower than US $20,000 (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.11-2.34; P=.01) were positively associated with indicating a preference for speaking directly to a provider. Hispanic individuals had significantly higher odds of indicating that they had no need for a patient portal (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.24-2.05; P<.001) compared with non-Hispanic individuals. Older individuals (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.04-1.06; P<.001), individuals with less than a high school diploma (OR 3.15, 95% CI 1.79-5.53; P<.001), and individuals with a household income of less than US $20,000 (OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.88-4.11; P<.001) had significantly higher odds of indicating that they were uncomfortable with a computer.

CONCLUSIONS

The most common barriers to patient portal adoption are preference for in-person communication, not having a need for the patient portal, and feeling uncomfortable with computers, which are barriers that are modifiable and can be intervened upon. Patient characteristics can help predict which patients are most likely to experience certain barriers to patient portal adoption. Further research is needed to tailor implementation approaches based on patients' needs and preferences.

Comparing Characteristics of Patients Who Connect Their iPhones to an Electronic Health Records System Versus Patients Who Connect Without Personal Devices: Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

While individual access to health records has traditionally been through paper and other physical media, there has been a recent push toward digitizing this process. Direct patient access to health data through application programming interfaces (APIs) is an important part of current United States policy initiatives, and Apple has created the product "Health Records on iPhone" to leverage APIs for this purpose.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to examine the characteristics of patients at our institution who connected their personal iPhone devices to our electronic health records (EHRs) system through "Health Records on iPhone", as compared to patients at our institution who used our patient portal but did not connect a personal device to our system.

METHODS

We examined adult patients at our institution who had authorized an iPhone device to download their health data from the Partners HealthCare EHR via APIs through "Health Records on iPhone" from February 18, 2018 (the date this feature was enabled at our health system) until February 17, 2019. We compared these patients to adult patients who used our portal at least once during this period but did not authorize an iPhone device to download their data via APIs.

RESULTS

Variables associated with an increased likelihood of using "Health Records on iPhone" included male gender (adjusted OR 3.36; 95% CI 3.11-3.62; P<.001) and younger age, particularly below 50 years of age. With each decade of age over 50, people were less likely to be "Health Records on iPhone" product users. Asian patients were more likely to use the product than Caucasian patients (adjusted OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.16-1.51; P<.001), though there was no significant difference between African Americans and Caucasians (adjusted OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.94-1.41; P=.17). Patients who resided in higher ZIP code income quartiles were more likely to be users than those in the lowest quartile.

CONCLUSIONS

Early results from the implementation of patient-facing APIs at a single institution suggest that there are opportunities for expanding these technologies to ensure all patients are aware of, and have access to, their health data on their personal devices. More work is needed on expanding these technologies to different patient populations.