1 / 13

Survey Analysis of Patient Experience using a Practice-Linked PHR for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Survey Analysis of Patient Experience using a Practice-Linked PHR for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. AMIA 2009 Symposium Jonathan S. Wald, Richard W. Grant, Jeffrey L. Schnipper, Tejal K. Gandhi,Eric G. Poon,Alexandra C.Businger, E. John Orav, Deborah H. Williams, Lynn A. Volk,Blackford Middleton.

ilar
Download Presentation

Survey Analysis of Patient Experience using a Practice-Linked PHR for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Survey Analysis of Patient Experience using a Practice-Linked PHR for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus AMIA 2009 Symposium Jonathan S. Wald, Richard W. Grant, Jeffrey L. Schnipper, Tejal K. Gandhi,Eric G. Poon,Alexandra C.Businger, E. John Orav, Deborah H. Williams, Lynn A. Volk,Blackford Middleton

  2. Outline • Introduction • Methods • Results • Discussion • Conclusion

  3. Introduction • Patient-entered information collected electronically for use has become more commonplace. • It promises to save time, increase patient understanding of their self, and engage the patient as a partner in care. • The Prepare for Care study (a clinical trail) offered a electronic journal for visit preparation by patients.

  4. Methods

  5. Results • 81% of patient-opened journals were submitted, and most 81% of patient-submitted journals were physician-opened.

  6. The journal had a positive impact in a number of ways. • Journal content as too narrow. • The journal questions are clumsy and not flexible. • The journal may be uselessly for physicians.

  7. Discussion • Half or more of patients surveyed felt the journal improved their visit preparation and the information their physician had about them. • It did not improve visit satisfaction and the perceived quality of care in the visit. • The journal limited the patient's ability to address other topics. • Notification of a submitted journal was passive. • Small number of responses to the survey could have biased the study findings.

  8. Conclusion • Limitations were also identified in the areas of content, workflow, access, and usability. • A number of challenges including content tailoring, and the need to engage both patients and physicians in workflow changes.

More Related