Top

Published in:

01-01-2015 | Original Research

Designing a Patient-Centered User Interface for Access Decisions about EHR Data: Implications from Patient Interviews

Authors: Kelly Caine, Ph.D., Spencer Kohn, B.A., Carrie Lawrence, Ph.D., Rima Hanania, Ph.D., Eric M. Meslin, Ph.D., William M. Tierney, M.D.

Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Special Issue 1/2015

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND

Electronic health records change the landscape of patient data sharing and privacy by increasing the amount of information collected and stored and the number of potential recipients. Patients desire granular control over who receives what information in their electronic health record (EHR), but there are no current patient interfaces that allow them to record their preferences for EHR access.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to derive the user needs of patients regarding the design of a user interface that records patients’ individual choices about who can access data in their EHRs.

DESIGN

We used semi-structured interviews.

SETTING

The study was conducted in Central Indiana.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty patients with data stored in an EHR, the majority of whom (70 %) had highly sensitive health EHR data, were included in the study.

APPROACH

We conducted a thematic and quantitative analysis of transcribed interview data.

KEY RESULTS

Patients rarely knew what data were in their EHRs, but would have liked to know. They also wanted to be able to control who could access what information in their EHR and wanted to be notified when their data we re accessed.

CONCLUSIONS

We derived six implications for the design of a patient-centered tool to allow individual choice in the disclosure of EHR: easy patient access to their EHRs; an overview of current EHR sharing permissions; granular, hierarchical control over EHR access; EHR access controls based on dates; contextual privacy controls; and notification when their EHRs are accessed.

Available only for authorised users

Furukawa MF, Patel V, Charles D, Swain M, Mostashari F. Hospital electronic health information exchange grew substantially in 2008–12. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32:1346–54.PubMedCrossRef

Williams C, Mostashari F, Mertz K, Hogin E, Atwal P. From the Office of the National Coordinator: the strategy for advancing the exchange of health information. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31:527–36.PubMedCrossRef

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Report to the President Realizing the Full Potential of Health Information Technology to Improve Healthcare for Americans: The Path Forward [Internet]. White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; 2010 Dec [cited 2014 Sep 15] Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-health-it-report.pdf

Chaudhry B, Wang J, Wu S, et al. Systematic Review: Impact of Health Information Technology on Quality, Efficiency, and Costs of Medical Care. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(10):742–52.PubMedCrossRef

Hillestad R, Bigelow J, Bower A, et al. Can Electronic Medical Record Systems Transform Health Care? Potential Health Benefits, Savings, and Costs. Health Aff. 2005;25(5):1103–17. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.24.5.1103.CrossRef

Campos-Castillo C, Anthony D. The double-edged sword of electronic health records: implications for patient disclosure. J Gen Med Inform Assoc. 2014. doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2014-002804.

Bishop L, Holms B. National Consumer Heath Privacy Survey. Oakland, CA: California HealthCare Foundation; 2005.

Sankar P, Mora S, Merz JF, Jones NL. Patient Persectives of Medical Confidentiality. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18(8):656–669.CrossRef

Meslin EM, Albert S, Carroll AE, Odell JD, Tierney WM, Schwartz PH. Giving patients granular control of personal health information: Using an ethics “Points to Consider” to inform informatics system designers. Int J Med Inform. 2013;82:1136–1143.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Meslin E, Schwartz P. On the sufficiency of using bioethics principles to design patient control of electronic health records. J Gen Intern Med (submitted for publication)

11.

Leventhal JC, Cummins JA, Schwartz PH, Martin DK, Tierney WM. Patient control of provider access to their electronic health records: Technical and organizational challenges (in press).

12.

Berkwits M, Inui TS. Making Use of Qualitative Research Techniques. J Gen Intern Med. 1998;13(3):1525–1457. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.1998.00054x.CrossRef

13.

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual HealthCare. 2007;19(6):349–357. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzm042.CrossRef

14.

Caine K, Hanania R. Patients want granular privacy control over health information in electronic medical records. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;20:7–15. doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2012-00102.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

15.

Biondich PG, Grannis SJ. The Indiana network for patient care: an integrated clinical information system informed by over 30 years of experience. J Public Health Manag Pract 2004; Suppl:S81-6.

16.

Carr J. Recommendations regarding sensitive health information [Internet]. National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics; 2010 Nov 10 [cited 2014 Mar 28]. Available at: http://www.ncvhs.hhs.gov/101110lt.pdf.

17.

INReseearch. Available at: https://www.inresearch.org/home. Accessed 2014 Sep 12.

18.

Tierney WM, Alpert SA, Byrket A, Caine K, Leventhal JC, Meslin EM, Schwartz PH. Patient Control of Access to their Electronic Health Records: A Real World Demonstration in Primary Care. (in prep)

19.

MAXQDA [computer program]. Berlin, Germany: VERBI GmbH; 1995.

20.

Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL, Garrett AL. Methodological issues in conducting mixed methods research designs. Advances in mixed methods research. 2008:66–83. doi:10.4135/9780857024329

21.

Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Nationwide privacy and security framework for electronic exchange of individually identifiable health information [Internet]. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2008 Dec 15 [cited 2014 Sep 15]. Available at: http://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/nationwide-ps-framework-5.pdf

22.

Berwick DM. What ‘Patient-Centered’ Should Mean: Confessions Of An Extremist. Health Aff. 2009;28:4w555–w565. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.28.4.w555.CrossRef

23.

Safran C, Bloomrosen M, Hammond WE, et al. Toward a national framework for the secondary use of health data: an American Medical Informatics Association White Paper. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14(1):1–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

24.

Delbanco T, Walker J, Bell SK, et al. Inviting Patients to Read Their Doctor’s Notes: A Quasi-experimental Study and a Look Ahead. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(7):461–470. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-157-7-201210020-00002.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

25.

Woods SS, Schwartz E, Tuepker A, et al. Patient Experience With Full Electronic Access to Health Records and Clinical Notes Through the My HealtheVet Personal Health Record Pilot: Qualitative Study. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(3):e65. doi:10.2196/jmir.2356.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

26.

Accenture. Doctors Survey: How Do US Doctors Perceive Healthcare IT [Internet]. Accenture. 2013 May 8. [cited 2014 Sep 15]. Available at: http://www.accenture.com/us-en/Pages/insight-acn-doctors-survey-how-us-doctors-perceive-healthcare-it.aspx

27.

Vodicka E, Mejilla R, Leveille SG, et al. Online Access to Doctors’ Notes: Patient Concerns About Privacy. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(9):e208.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

28.

Kuperman GJ. Health-information exchange: why are we doing it, and what are we doing? J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011;18(5):678–82.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

29.

Data Privacy Lab. theDataMap. Available at: http://thedatamap.org. Accessed 2014 Sep 12.

30.

Whiddett R, Hunter I, Engelbrecht J, et al. Patients’ attitudes towards sharing their health information. Int J Med Inform. 2006;75:530–41.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Teixeira PA, Gordon P, Camhi E, Bakken S. HIV patients’ willingness to share personal health information electronically. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;84:e9–e12.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

32.

Damschroder LJ, Pritts JL, Neblo MA, Kalarickal RJ, Creswell JW, Hayward RA. Patients, privacy and trust: Patients’ willingness to allow researchers to access their medical records. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64(1):223–35.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Spiekermann S, Grossklags J, Berendt B. E-privacy in 2nd Generation E-Commerce: Privacy Preferences versus actual Behavior. Proceedings of the 3rd ACM conference on Electronic Commerce. 2001 Oct 14–17.

34.

Office of the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology and the Department of Veterans Affairs [Internet]. Health Design Challenge; c2012 [cited 2014 Sep 15]. Available from: http://healthdesignchallenge.com/

35.

Tierney WM, Beck EJ, Gardner RM, et al. Viewpoint: a pragmatic approach to constructing a minimum data set for care of patients with HIV in developing countries. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13(3):253–60.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Title: Designing a Patient-Centered User Interface for Access Decisions about EHR Data: Implications from Patient Interviews
Authors: Kelly Caine, Ph.D.
Spencer Kohn, B.A.
Carrie Lawrence, Ph.D.
Rima Hanania, Ph.D.
Eric M. Meslin, Ph.D.
William M. Tierney, M.D.
Publication date: 01-01-2015
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine / Issue Special Issue 1/2015
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Electronic ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-014-3049-9

Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Reserve your place

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin

Prof. Florian Limbourg

Prof. Anoop Chauhan

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND

OBJECTIVE

DESIGN

SETTING

PARTICIPANTS

APPROACH

KEY RESULTS

CONCLUSIONS

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Special Issue 1/2015

Provider Responses to Patients Controlling Access to their Electronic Health Records: A Prospective Cohort Study in Primary Care

Designing a System for Patients Controlling Providers’ Access to their Electronic Health Records: Organizational and Technical Challenges

How Bioethics Principles Can Aid Design of Electronic Health Records to Accommodate Patient Granular Control

Point and Counterpoint: Patient Control of Access to Data in Their Electronic Health Records

Broadening the View of Interoperability to include Person-Centeredness

Giving Patients Control of Their EHR Data

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

At a glance: The STEP trials