Search

Objective: To determine the effects of an inpatient portal intervention on patient activation, patient satisfaction, patient engagement with health information, and 30-day hospital readmissions.Methods and Materials: From March 2014 to May 2017, we enrolled 426 English- or Spanish-speaking patients from 2 cardiac medical-surgical units at an urban academic medical center. Patients were randomized to 1 of 3 groups: 1) usual care, 2) tablet with general Internet access (tablet-only), and 3) tablet with an inpatient portal. The primary study outcome was patient activation (Patient Activation Measure-13). Secondary outcomes included all-cause readmission within 30 days, patient satisfaction, and patient engagement with health information.Results: There was no evidence of a difference in patient activation among patients assigned to the inpatient portal intervention compared to usual care or the tablet-only group. Patients in the inpatient portal group had lower 30-day hospital readmissions (5.5% vs. 12.9% tablet-only and 13.5% usual care; P = 0.044). There was evidence of a difference in patient engagement with health information between the inpatient portal and tablet-only group, including looking up health information online (89.6% vs. 51.8%; P < 0.001). Healthcare providers reported that patients found the portal useful and that the portal did not negatively impact healthcare delivery.Conclusions: Access to an inpatient portal did not significantly improve patient activation, but it was associated with looking up health information online and with a lower 30-day hospital readmission rate. These results illustrate benefit of providing hospitalized patients with real-time access to their electronic health record data while in the hospital.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01970852. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine the effects of an inpatient portal intervention on patient activation, patient satisfaction, patient engagement with health information, and 30-day hospital readmissions., Methods and Materials: From March 2014 to May 2017, we enrolled 426 English- or Spanish-speaking patients from 2 cardiac medical-surgical units at an urban academic medical center. Patients were randomized to 1 of 3 groups: 1) usual care, 2) tablet with general Internet access (tablet-only), and 3) tablet with an inpatient portal. The primary study outcome was patient activation (Patient Activation Measure-13). Secondary outcomes included all-cause readmission within 30 days, patient satisfaction, and patient engagement with health information., Results: There was no evidence of a difference in patient activation among patients assigned to the inpatient portal intervention compared to usual care or the tablet-only group. Patients in the inpatient portal group had lower 30-day hospital readmissions (5.5% vs. 12.9% tablet-only and 13.5% usual care; P = 0.044). There was evidence of a difference in patient engagement with health information between the inpatient portal and tablet-only group, including looking up health information online (89.6% vs. 51.8%; P < 0.001). Healthcare providers reported that patients found the portal useful and that the portal did not negatively impact healthcare delivery., Conclusions: Access to an inpatient portal did not significantly improve patient activation, but it was associated with looking up health information online and with a lower 30-day hospital readmission rate. These results illustrate benefit of providing hospitalized patients with real-time access to their electronic health record data while in the hospital., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01970852.

Engaging healthcare providers in acute care patient portal implementation is critical to ensure productive use. However, few studies have assessed provider's perceptions of an acute care portal after implementation. In this study, we surveyed 63 nurses, physicians, and physician assistants following a 3-year randomized trial of an acute care portal. The survey assessed providers' perceptions of the portal and its impact on care delivery. Respondents reported that the portal positively impacted care, and they perceived that their patients found it usable and trustworthy. Respondents reported that all the portal's features were useful, especially the display of laboratory test results. Compared with the results of a patient survey, providers underestimated the portal's usefulness to patients, and ranked features as very useful significantly less often than patients (57% vs. 74%; p<0.001). Our study found that providers supported their patients' use of the portal, but may have underappreciated the portal's value to patients.