Provider Responses to Patients Controlling Access to their Electronic Health Records: A Prospective Cohort Study in Primary Care

被引:26
|
作者
Tierney, William M. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Alpert, Sheri A. [3 ]
Byrket, Amy [1 ]
Caine, Kelly [3 ,4 ]
Leventhal, Jeremy C. [1 ]
Meslin, Eric M. [3 ]
Schwartz, Peter H. [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Regenstrief Inst Inc, Indianapolis, IN 46202 USA
[2] Eskenazi Hlth, Indianapolis, IN USA
[3] Indiana Univ Sch Med, Indianapolis, IN 46202 USA
[4] Clemson Univ Sch Comp, Clemson, SC USA
关键词
fair information practices; electronic health records; patient preferences; quality of care; INFORMATION-TECHNOLOGY; MEDICAL GOPHER; SYSTEM; EXPERIENCE; NETWORK; ETHICS;
D O I
10.1007/s11606-014-3053-0
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
INTRODUCTION: Applying Fair Information Practice principles to electronic health records (EHRs) requires allowing patient control over who views their data. METHODS: We designed a program that captures patients' preferences for provider access to an urban health system's EHR. Patients could allow or restrict providers' access to all data (diagnoses, medications, test results, reports, etc.) or only highly sensitive data (sexually transmitted infections, HIV/AIDS, drugs/alcohol, mental or reproductive health). Except for information in free-text reports, we redacted EHR data shown to providers according to patients' preferences. Providers could "break the glass" to display redacted information. We prospectively studied this system in one primary care clinic, noting redactions and when users "broke the glass," and surveyed providers about their experiences and opinions. RESULTS: Eight of nine eligible clinic physicians and all 23 clinic staff participated. All 105 patients who enrolled completed the preference program. Providers did not know which of their patients were enrolled, nor their preferences for accessing their EHRs. During the 6-month prospective study, 92 study patients (88 %) returned 261 times, during which providers viewed their EHRs 126 times (48 %). Providers " broke the glass" 102 times, 92 times for patients not in the study and ten times for six returning study patients, all of whom had restricted EHR access. Providers " broke the glass" for six (14 %) of 43 returning study patients with redacted data vs. zero among 49 study patients without redactions (p=0.01). Although 54 % of providers agreed that patients should have control over who sees their EHR information, 58 % believed restricting EHR access could harm provider-patient relationships and 71 % felt quality of care would suffer. CONCLUSIONS: Patients frequently preferred restricting provider access to their EHRs. Providers infrequently overrode patients' preferences to view hidden data. Providers believed that restricting EHR access would adversely impact patient care. Applying Fair Information Practice principles to EHRs will require balancing patient preferences, providers' needs, and health care quality.
引用
收藏
页码:S31 / S37
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Markers of dementia-related health in primary care electronic health records
    Campbell, Paul
    Rathod-Mistry, Trishna
    Marshall, Michelle
    Bailey, James
    Chew-Graham, Carolyn A.
    Croft, Peter
    Frisher, Martin
    Hayward, Richard
    Negi, Rashi
    Singh, Swaran
    Tantalo-Baker, Shula
    Tarafdar, Suhail
    Babatunde, Opeyemi O.
    Robinson, Louise
    Sumathipala, Athula
    Thein, Nwe
    Walters, Kate
    Weich, Scott
    Jordan, Kelvin P.
    AGING & MENTAL HEALTH, 2021, 25 (08) : 1452 - 1462
  • [22] The relationship between usage intention and adoption of electronic health records at primary care clinics
    Iqbal, Usman
    Ho, Cheng-Hsun
    Li, Yu-Chuan Jack
    Nguyen, Phung-Anh
    Jian, Wen-Shan
    Wen, Hsyien-Chia
    COMPUTER METHODS AND PROGRAMS IN BIOMEDICINE, 2013, 112 (03) : 731 - 737
  • [23] What do primary care staff think about patients accessing electronic health records? A focus group study
    Louch, Gemma
    Albutt, Abigail
    Smyth, Kate
    O'Hara, Jane K.
    BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2022, 22 (01)
  • [24] What do primary care staff think about patients accessing electronic health records? A focus group study
    Gemma Louch
    Abigail Albutt
    Kate Smyth
    Jane K. O’Hara
    BMC Health Services Research, 22
  • [25] Investigating concordance in diabetes diagnosis between primary care charts (electronic medical records) and health administrative data: a retrospective cohort study
    Harris, Stewart B.
    Glazier, Richard H.
    Tompkins, Jordan W.
    Wilton, Andrew S.
    Chevendra, Vijaya
    Stewart, Moira A.
    Thind, Amardeep
    BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2010, 10
  • [26] The Use of Primary Care Electronic Health Records for Research: Lipid Medications and Mortality in Elderly Patients
    Hodgkins, Adam J.
    Mullan, Judy
    Mayne, Darren J.
    Bonney, Andrew
    PHARMACY, 2019, 7 (03)
  • [27] Unintended consequences of patient online access to health records: a qualitative study in UK primary care
    Turner, Andrew
    Morris, Rebecca
    McDonagh, Lorraine
    Hamilton, Fiona
    Blake, Sarah
    Farr, Michelle
    Stevenson, Fiona
    Banks, Jon
    Atherton, Helen
    Rakhra, Dylan
    Lasseter, Gemma
    Feder, Gene
    Ziebland, Sue
    Hyde, Emma
    Powell, John
    Horwood, Jeremy
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE, 2023, 73 (726) : E67 - E74
  • [28] Exploring Residents' Interactions With Electronic Health Records in Primary Care Encounters
    Asan, Onur
    Kushner, Kenneth
    Montague, Enid
    FAMILY MEDICINE, 2015, 47 (09) : 722 - 726
  • [29] Patterns of multimorbidity in primary care electronic health records: A systematic review
    Beridze, Giorgi
    Abbadi, Ahmad
    Ars, Joan
    Remelli, Francesca
    Vetrano, Davide L.
    Trevisan, Caterina
    Perez, Laura-Monica
    Lopez-Rodriguez, Juan A.
    Calderon-Larranaga, Amaia
    JOURNAL OF MULTIMORBIDITY AND COMORBIDITY, 2024, 14
  • [30] Strategies for Primary Care Stakeholders to Improve Electronic Health Records (EHRs)
    Olayiwola, J. Nwando
    Rubin, Ashley
    Slomoff, Theo
    Woldeyesus, Tem
    Willard-Grace, Rachel
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN BOARD OF FAMILY MEDICINE, 2016, 29 (01) : 126 - 134