The terms electronic health records, personal health records, and patient portals are not always used correctly. The generally agreed upon definition of these terms relates mainly to the ownership of the data. Once data is in a PHR it usually owned and controlled by the patient. Most EHRs, however, are the property of the provider, although the content can be co-created by both the provider and patient. A patient has a legal right in most states to request their healthcare data and under recent USA legislation those providers using a certified EHR will be required to provide an electronic copy as well. In the UK, according to the governments's information strategy for the NHS every primary care practice in England will have to offer patients online access to their care records by 2015.In 2012, only 1% did so.Electronic health records and electronic medical records contain clinical data created by and for health professionals in the course of providing care. The data is about the patient but the data resides in a health care provider's system. The patient portal is typically defined as a view into the electronic medical records. In addition, ancillary functions that support a health care provider's interaction with a patient are also found in those systems e.g. prescription refill requests, appointment requests, electronic case management, etc. Finally, PHRs are data that resides with the patient, in a system of the patient's choosing. This data may have been exported directly from an EMR, but the point is it now resides in a location of the patient's choosing. Access to that information is controlled entirely by the patient.
A new concept being discussed is the UHR or "universal health record", which would be a patient-centered and patient-controlled body of information that could be shared in a granular way with particular health care providers at the patient's discretion in support of the patient's work with health care providers. This project would enlist open source contributions and enhancements from developers, with particular emphasis on supporting patient expectations of privacy and responsible patient control of private health information (PHI). It is anticipated that effective implementation of one or more "open source" approaches to the UHR would benefit both providers and patients, including providing more cost-effective solutions to currently difficult problems including entry/verification/update of personal health data, enabling responsible patient-controlled granular release of PHI, and supporting interoperability and effective collaboration of patients and physicians across disparate EHR/PHR platforms.
While PHRs can help patients keep track of their personal health information, the value of PHRs to healthcare organizations is still unclear.
Despite the need to centralize patient information, PHR adoption has been very low. In 2002, a study was carried out in an effort to assess the functionality and utility of online PHRs. An abstraction from real-life case of a patient suffering from a thyroid condition was utilized to create various online PHRs. The outputs generated were examined for accuracy and completeness of clinical information. A team of researchers identified 19 websites offering different versions of PHRs. To evaluate the PHRs, researchers identified criteria based on their promotional advertisements. Ideally, centralized PHRs should help patients relate accurate history during clinical encounters, check for drug interactions, eliminate unnecessary duplication of laboratory tests and diagnostic studies, and serve as an information hub for patients’ health management.An analysis of web-based PHR applications showed that most websites did provide access to personal medical information, however each demonstrated limited capacity in a different way:
From the 19 sites examined, four were found to be specific to certain diseases only and were therefore excluded from the study. Another four were excluded for reasons such as recurrent technical problems or connections to a specific hospital’s information system. The remaining 11 sites did not provide patients with sufficient guidance as to how they should enter personal data. Some of the sites allowed patients to select medical conditions from categorized lists which did not cover the patients’ complete health condition while others allowed free text entry. To formulate medication history, sites that required patients to choose medication from lists requested them to enter a wide range of descriptive information for each medication such as prescribed dose, administration frequency, start date, name of pharmacy that issued the medication and name of provider that prescribed the medication. With respect to laboratory tests, only two allowed patients to import results from outside sources. From these two sites, only one was functional. Not every site allowed patients to enter insurance coverage information. Majority of the sites required patients to enter date and results of diagnostic tests.
Most people do not keep record of minute details of their healthcare experiences and therefore find it difficult to make use of web-based PHRs. Overall, the sites selected for evaluation offered limited functionality to the general public. Low adoption of web-based PHRs can be a direct result of limitations in these applications’ data entry, validation and information display methods. PHR development should be guided by ample patient-oriented research in future.
Comments
Post a Comment