Search

Background The use of portals might be expected to rise; however, adoption has been slow. Development of portals has occurred with limited patient involvement. This paper fills a need for literature concerning perspectives regarding the value of portals, how best to organize and provide portals, and critically how to seek patient involvement in implementation. Objective The objective was to explore the feelings, ideas, and expectations of patients and primary care providers concerning the implementation and use of patient portals. Methods The study employed a descriptive qualitative design interviewing seven patients and four providers from an interdisciplinary primary health care clinic in Ontario, Canada. Patients were older with at least one chronic condition. Interviews were analysed independently by three coders who then met to synthesize the findings. Results There was limited experience of portals and substantial convergence between patients and providers regarding concerns and potential benefits with an overall positive view. Four themes emerged: 1) the Context in which patient portal use takes place; 2) the Necessary conditions for use of a patient portal; 3) the Implementation of a patient portal; and 4) the Use of a patient portal for care. Conclusion Findings highlight that it is not sufficient to engage patients in the use of a portal; it is critical that patients be engaged in the early stages of implementation. With many health and fitness electronic tools available (e.g. Fitbit©), this study remind us that tools are not enough. Patient engagement requires patient-centred partnerships between patients and health care providers.

Background Electronic medical records (EMRs) have the potential to improve the provision of preventive care by allowing general practitioners (GPs) to track and recall eligible patients and record testing for feedback on their service provision. Objective This study evaluates the effect of an educational intervention and feedback tool designed to teach GPs how to use their EMRs to improve their provision of preventive care. Methods A randomised controlled trial comparing rates of mammography, Papanicolaou tests, faecal occult blood tests and albumin creatinine ratios one-year pre- and post-intervention was conducted. Nine primary care practices (PCPs) representing over 30 000 patients were paired by practice size and experience of GPs, and randomly allocated to intervention or control groups. Physicians at the four intervention practices received a two-hour feedback session on their current level of preventive care and training to generate eligible patient lists for preventive services from their EMR database. Results One-year post-intervention results provided no evidence of a difference. The intervention was not a significant predictor of the one-year post-intervention test rates for any of the four tests. On average, the intervention practices increased postintervention test rates on all tests by 16.8%, and control practices increased by 22.3%. Conclusion The non-significant results may be due to a variety of reasons, including the level of intensity of the educational intervention, the cointervention of a government programme which provided incentives to GPs meeting specific targets for preventive care testing or the level of recording of tests performed in the EMR.