Search

Despite the increasing availability of online patient portals that provide access to electronic health records, little is known about their adoption by patients. We systematically reviewed the literature to investigate adoption of patient portals across studies. We searched MEDLINE and Scopus to identify relevant papers. We included 40 studies: 24 were controlled experiments, with prospective data collection in an actively recruited population; 16 were real-world experiments, with adoption being evaluated retrospectively after system deployment in clinical practice. Our meta-analysis showed an overall mean adoption rate of 52% (95% Confidence Interval [CI], 42 to 62%). Rates differed markedly between study types: controlled experiments yielded a mean adoption rate of 71% (95% CI 64 to 79%), compared to 23% (95% CI, 13 to 33%) in real-world experiments. This difference was confirmed in a meta-regression analysis of the influence of study characteristics on adoption rates. Our findings suggest that adoption rates reported in controlled studies do not reflect those in everyday clinical practice. Until we understand how to effectively increase adoption, patient portals are unlikely to consistently lead to improvements in care processes and health outcomes.

Purpose: To identify and prioritize potential topics to be addressed in the development of European multidisciplinary guidelines on the management of chronic kidney disease stage 3b-5 in older patients., Methods: We composed a list of 47 potential guideline topics by reviewing the literature, consulting online 461 nephrologists and 107 geriatricians, and obtaining expert input. A multidisciplinary panel of twelve experts then prioritized the topics during a face-to-face consensus meeting, following a nominal group technique structure with two voting rounds. Topics were rated on a 9-point scale ranging from 1 ('not at all important') to 9 ('critically important')., Results: The highest rating (median; range) was assigned to 'Screening and referral' (8.5; 2.0). Eight topics shared the second highest rating with a median priority score of 8.0 (2.0) and included 'Starting dialysis or not' and 'Accurate assessment of renal function.' 'Targets for and treatment of diabetes' received the lowest rating with (3.0; 6.0)., Conclusions: This joint initiative of the European Renal Association-European Dialysis Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) and the European Union Geriatric Medicine Society (EUGMS) prioritized the development of guidance on interdisciplinary referral of older patients with chronic kidney disease stage 3b-5. Future guidance will therefore focus on identifying prognostic scores to predict death and progression to end-stage renal disease, as well as accurate tests for assessment of renal function in older kidney patients. This will contribute to more informed treatment decision making in this growing patient population.

Health informatics interventions such as clinical decision support (CDS) and audit and feedback (A&F) are variably effective at improving care because the underlying mechanisms through which these interventions bring about change are poorly understood. This limits our possibilities to design better interventions. Process evaluations can be used to improve this understanding by assessing fidelity and quality of implementation, clarifying causal mechanisms, and identifying contextual factors associated with variation in outcomes. Coiera describes the intervention process as a series of stages extending from interactions to outcomes: the "information value chain". However, past process evaluations often did not assess the relationships between those stages. In this paper we argue that the chain can be measured quantitatively and unobtrusively in digital interventions thanks to the availability of electronic data that are a by-product of their use. This provides novel possibilities to study the mechanisms of informatics interventions in detail and inform essential design choices to optimize their efficacy.

Audit and feedback (A&F) is widely used to aid healthcare professionals in improving clinical performance, but there is little understanding of the underlying mechanism that determines its effectiveness. The aim of this paper is to investigate the process by which healthcare professionals select indicators as improvement targets based on A&F. We performed a laboratory study among 41 healthcare professionals in the context of a web-based A&F intervention designed to improve the quality of cardiac rehabilitation care in the Netherlands. Feedback was provided on eighteen quality indicators, including a score and a colour (representing a recommendation for selection (red and yellow) or non-selection (green)). Indicators with more room for improvement were more likely to be selected, although this varied substantially between participants. In more than a quarter of the cases, participants did not select indicators with obvious room for improvement (yellow or red colour), or selected indicators without apparent room for improvement (green colour). We conclude that personal preferences and beliefs concerning quality and performance targets may dilute the efficiency of A&F.

Background: In multisite trials evaluating a complex quality improvement (QI) strategy the 'same' intervention may be implemented and adopted in different ways. Therefore, in this study we investigated the exposure to and experiences with a multifaceted intervention aimed at improving the quality of intensive care, and explore potential explanations for why the intervention was effective or not., Methods: We conducted a process evaluation investigating the effect of a multifaceted improvement intervention including establishment of a local multidisciplinary QI team, educational outreach visits and periodical indicator feedback on performance measures such as intensive care unit length of stay, mechanical ventilation duration and glucose regulation. Data were collected among participants receiving the intervention. We used standardised forms to record time investment and a questionnaire and focus group to collect data on perceived barriers and satisfaction., Results: The monthly time invested per QI team member ranged from 0.6 to 8.1 h. Persistent problems were: not sharing feedback with other staff; lack of normative standards and benchmarks; inadequate case-mix adjustment; lack of knowledge on how to apply the intervention for QI; and insufficient allocated time and staff. The intervention effectively targeted the lack of trust in data quality, and was reported to motivate participants to use indicators for QI activities., Conclusions: Time and resource constraints, difficulties to translate feedback into effective actions and insufficient involvement of other staff members hampered the impact of the intervention. However, our study suggests that a multifaceted feedback program stimulates clinicians to use indicators as input for QI, and is a promising first step to integrating systematic QI in daily care.

Continuous monitoring and systematic improvement of quality have become increasingly common in healthcare. To support multidisciplinary care teams in improving their clinical performance using feedback on quality indicators, we developed the CARDSS Online system. This system supports (i) monitoring of indicator-based performance, (ii) selecting aspects of care that need improvement, (iii) developing a quality improvement (QI) plan, and (iv) periodically adjusting the QI plan. During educational outreach visits, the system actively involves the team in the improvement effort, and guides them through the process of systematic QI without needing extensive knowledge of the underlying concepts. During the implementation of the system in the field of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in the Netherlands, we have conducted the first outreach visits to four CR teams. During the visits, the teams formulated QI plans consisting of 4 to 7 improvement goals, each goal accompanied by 1 to 5 QI actions. Currently, we are evaluating the effect of CARDSS Online on the quality of CR in the Netherlands in a cluster randomized trial.