Survey Analysis of Patient Survey Analysis of Patient Experience using a Practice-Linked Experience using a Practice-Linked

PHR for Type 2 Diabetes MellitusPHR for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus AMIA 2009 SymposiumAMIA 2009 Symposium

Jonathan S. Wald, Richard W. Grant, Jeffrey L. SchnippeJonathan S. Wald, Richard W. Grant, Jeffrey L. Schnipper, Tejal K. Gandhi,Eric G. Poon,Alexandra C.Businger, E. r, Tejal K. Gandhi,Eric G. Poon,Alexandra C.Businger, E. John Orav, Deborah H. Williams, Lynn A. Volk,BlackforJohn Orav, Deborah H. Williams, Lynn A. Volk,Blackfor

d Middletond Middleton

OutlineOutline

IntroductionIntroduction MethodsMethods ResultsResults DiscussionDiscussion ConclusionConclusion

IntroductionIntroduction

Patient-entered information collected Patient-entered information collected electronically for use has become more electronically for use has become more commonplace.commonplace.

It promises to save time, increase patient It promises to save time, increase patient understanding of their self, and engage the understanding of their self, and engage the patient as a partner in care.patient as a partner in care.

The Prepare for Care study (a clinical trail) The Prepare for Care study (a clinical trail) offered a electronic journal for visit offered a electronic journal for visit preparation by patients.preparation by patients.

MethodsMethods

Results Results

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

The journal had a positive impact in a number of The journal had a positive impact in a number of ways.ways.

Journal content as too narrow.Journal content as too narrow.

The journal questions are clumsy and not flexible.The journal questions are clumsy and not flexible.

The journal may be uselessly for physicians.The journal may be uselessly for physicians.

DiscussionDiscussion Half or more of patients surveyed felt the Half or more of patients surveyed felt the journal imprjournal impr

oved their visit preparationoved their visit preparation and the and the information their information their physician had about themphysician had about them..

ItIt did not improve visit satisfaction and the did not improve visit satisfaction and the perceived quality of care in the visitperceived quality of care in the visit ..

The journal limited the patient's ability to address otheThe journal limited the patient's ability to address other topics.r topics.

Notification of a submitted journal was passive.Notification of a submitted journal was passive.

Small number of responses to the survey could have biSmall number of responses to the survey could have biased the study findings.ased the study findings.

ConclusionConclusion Limitations were also identified in the areas Limitations were also identified in the areas

of content, workflow, access, and usability.of content, workflow, access, and usability.

A number of challenges including A number of challenges including content content tailoringtailoring, and the need to engage both , and the need to engage both patients and physicians patients and physicians in workflow changesin workflow changes..