Search

Objective Real-time access to test results on patient portals can have advantages and disadvantages for patients. It confronts patients with a complicated decision, namely whether to consult results before the medical consultation. To gain a deep understanding of patients’ decision-making processes, we unravelled three discourses about real-time access to test results, each of which articulates a different set of values, assumptions and arguments. Our research question was what patient discourses on real-time access to test results can be distinguished?Design We conducted discourse analysis on 28 semistructured interviews.Setting Interviews were conducted with patients who had (no) experience with real-time access to test results. Our participants were treated in different hospitals, and therefore, used different portals since Dutch hospitals can choose from suppliers for their patient portals.Participants Patients with experience (n=15) and without experience (n=13) of real-time access to test results on a patient portal.Results We identified three discourses: (1) real-time access as a source of stress, which highlighted how real-time access could cause stress due to the complexity of deciding whether to access test results, the incomprehensibility of medical language and the urge to repeatedly check if test results were available, (2) anxiety reduction through real-time access showed how real-time access can reduce stress by reducing waiting times and (3) real-time access for self-management showed how real-time access can give patients an opportunity for self-management because they can make informed decisions and are better prepared for the medical consultation.Conclusion Our study shows the plurality in opinions on real-time access, which helps in forming different strategies to inform and support patients in order to realise optimal use of real-time access.

Abstract Background In the transition towards value-based healthcare, patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROM and PREM) are recommended by international collaborations and government programs to guide clinical practice and quality improvement. For many conditions, using PROM/PREM over the complete continuum of care requires implementation across care organizations and disciplines. Along PROM/PREM implementation in obstetric care networks (OCN), we aimed to evaluate implementation outcomes and the processes influencing these outcomes in the complex context of care networks across the continuum of perinatal care. Methods Three OCN in the Netherlands implemented PROM/PREM in routine practice, using an internationally developed outcomes set with care professionals and patient advocates. Their aim was to use PROM/PREM results individually to guide patient-specific care decisions and at group-level to improve quality of care. The implementation process was designed following the principles of action research: iteratively planning implementation, action, data generation and reflection to refine subsequent actions, involving both researchers and care professionals. During the one-year implementation period in each OCN, implementation outcomes and processes were evaluated in this mixed-methods study. Data generation (including observation, surveys and focus groups) and analysis were guided by two theoretical implementation frameworks: the Normalization Process Theory and Proctor’s taxonomy for implementation outcomes. Qualitative findings were supplemented with survey data to solidify findings in a broader group of care professionals. Results Care professionals in OCN found the use of PROM/PREM acceptable and appropriate, recognized their benefits and felt facilitated in their patient-centered goals and vision. However, feasibility for daily practice was low, mainly due to IT issues and time constraints. Hence PROM/PREM implementation did not sustain, but strategies for future PROM/PREM implementation were formulated in all OCN. Processes contributing positively to implementation outcomes were internalization (understand the value) and initiation (driven by key-participants), whereas challenges in relational integration (maintain confidence) and reconfiguration (refine activities) affected implementation negatively. Conclusion Although implementation did not sustain, network-broad PROM/PREM use in clinic and quality improvement matched professionals’ motivation. This study provides recommendations to implement PROM/PREM meaningfully in practice in ways that support professionals in their drive towards patient-centered care. In order for PROM/PREM to fulfill their potential for value-based healthcare, our work highlights the need for sustainable IT infrastructures, as well as an iterative approach to refine their complex implementation into local contexts.

The disclosure of online test results (i.e., laboratory, radiology and pathology results) on patient portals can vary from immediate disclosure (in real-time) via a delay of up to 28 days to non-disclosure. Although a few studies explored patient opinions regarding test results release, we have no insight into actual patients’ preferences. To address this, we allowed patients to register their choices on a hospital patient portal. Our research question was: When do patients want their test results to be disclosed on the patient portal and what are the reasons for these choices? We used a mixed methods sequential explanatory design that included 1) patient choices on preferred time delay to test result disclosure on the patient portal for different medical specialties (N = 4592) and 2) semi-structured interviews with patients who changed their mind on their initial choice (N = 7). For laboratory (blood and urine) results, 3530 (76.9%) patients chose a delay of 1 day and 912 (19.9%) patients chose a delay of 7 days. For radiology and pathology results 4352 (94.8%) patients chose a delay of 7 days. 43 patients changed their mind about when they wanted to receive their results. By interviewing seven patients (16%) from this group we learned that some participants did not remember why they made changes. Four participants wanted a shorter delay to achieve transparency in health-related information and communication; to have time to process bad results; for reassurance; to prepare for a medical consultation; monitoring and acting on deviating results to prevent worsening of their disease; and to share results with their general practitioner. Three participants extended their chosen delay to avoid the disappointment about the content and anxiety of receiving incomprehensible information. Our study indicates that most patients prefer transparency in health-related information and want their test results to be disclosed as soon as possible.

The disclosure of online test results (i.e., laboratory, radiology and pathology results) on patient portals can vary from immediate disclosure (in real-time) via a delay of up to 28 days to non-disclosure. Although a few studies explored patient opinions regarding test results release, we have no insight into actual patients' preferences. To address this, we allowed patients to register their choices on a hospital patient portal. Our research question was: When do patients want their test results to be disclosed on the patient portal and what are the reasons for these choices? We used a mixed methods sequential explanatory design that included 1) patient choices on preferred time delay to test result disclosure on the patient portal for different medical specialties (N = 4592) and 2) semi-structured interviews with patients who changed their mind on their initial choice (N = 7). For laboratory (blood and urine) results, 3530 (76.9%) patients chose a delay of 1 day and 912 (19.9%) patients chose a delay of 7 days. For radiology and pathology results 4352 (94.8%) patients chose a delay of 7 days. 43 patients changed their mind about when they wanted to receive their results. By interviewing seven patients (16%) from this group we learned that some participants did not remember why they made changes. Four participants wanted a shorter delay to achieve transparency in health-related information and communication; to have time to process bad results; for reassurance; to prepare for a medical consultation; monitoring and acting on deviating results to prevent worsening of their disease; and to share results with their general practitioner. Three participants extended their chosen delay to avoid the disappointment about the content and anxiety of receiving incomprehensible information. Our study indicates that most patients prefer transparency in health-related information and want their test results to be disclosed as soon as possible.

Introduction: Patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROM and PREM) are used to guide individual care and quality improvement (QI). QI with patient-reported data is preferably organized around patients, which is challenging across organisations. We aimed to investigate network-broad learning for QI with outcome data. Methods: In three obstetric care networks using individual-level PROM/PREM, a learning strategy for cyclic QI based on aggregated outcome data was developed, implemented and evaluated. The strategy included clinical, patient-reported, and professional-reported data; together translated into cases for interprofessional discussion. This study’s data generation (including focus groups, surveys, observations) and analysis were guided by a theoretical model for network collaboration. Results: The learning sessions identified opportunities and actions to improve quality and continuity of perinatal care. Professionals valued the data (especially patient-reported) combined with in-dept interprofessional discussion. Main challenges were professionals’ time constraints, data infrastructure, and embedding improvement actions. Network-readiness for QI depended on trustful collaboration through connectivity and consensual leadership. Joint QI required information exchange and support including time and resources. Conclusions: Current fragmented healthcare organization poses barriers for network-broad QI with outcome data, but also offers opportunities for learning strategies. Furthermore, joint learning could improve collaboration to catalyse the journey towards integrated, value-based care.

BackgroundPatients in a range of health care sectors can access their medical health records using a patient portal. In mental health care, the use of patient portals among mental health care professionals remains low. Mental health care professionals are concerned that patient access to electronic health records (EHRs) will negatively affect the patient’s well-being and privacy as well as the professional’s own workload. ObjectiveThis study aims to provide insights into the appraisal work of mental health care professionals to assess and understand patient access to their EHRs through a patient portal. MethodsWe conducted a qualitative study that included 10 semistructured interviews (n=11) and a focus group (n=10). Participants in both the interviews and the focus group were mental health care professionals from different professional backgrounds and staff employees (eg, team leaders and communication advisors). We collected data on their opinions and experiences with the recently implemented patient portal and their attempts to modify work practices. ResultsOur study provides insights into mental health care professionals’ appraisal work to assess and understand patient access to the EHR through a patient portal. A total of four topics emerged from our data analysis: appraising the effect on the patient-professional relationship, appraising the challenge of sharing and registering delicate information, appraising patient vulnerability, and redefining consultation routines and registration practices. ConclusionsMental health care professionals struggle with the effects of web-based patient access and are searching for the best ways to modify their registration and consultation practices. Our participants seem to appraise the effects of web-based patient access individually. Our study signals the lack of systematization and communal appraisal. It also suggests various solutions to the challenges faced by mental health care professionals. To optimize the effects of web-based patient access to EHRs, mental health care professionals need to be involved in the process of developing, implementing, and embedding patient portals.