Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25480720›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2015

Provider responses to patients controlling access to their electronic health records: a prospective cohort study in primary care.

William M Tierney, Sheri A Alpert, Amy Byrket, Kelly Caine, Jeremy C Leventhal, Eric M Meslin, Peter H Schwartz

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01862133 (Aspiring to Awesome- Patient Preference Privacy Selections in EMR), which is not on this map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01862133 completednot on this map

Aspiring to Awesome- Patient Preference Privacy Selections in EMR

TypeobservationalSponsorIndiana UniversityRan2013 to 2014Enrolled136ConditionsSexually Transmitted DiseasesArmsPatient preferences
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. A Study to Elicit Behavioral Health Patients' and Providers' Opinions on Health Records Consent.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2017
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Family Caregivers and Consumer Health Information Technology.Journal of general internal medicine · 2016
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

William M TierneyRegenstrief Institute, Inc, 410 West Tenth Street, Suite HS2000, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA, wtierney@regenstrief.org.
Sheri A Alpert
Amy Byrket
Kelly Caine
Jeremy C Leventhal
Eric M Meslin
Peter H Schwartz

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionApplying Fair Information Practice principles to electronic health records (EHRs) requires allowing patient control over who views their data.

methodsWe designed a program that captures patients' preferences for provider access to an urban health system's EHR. Patients could allow or restrict providers' access to all data (diagnoses, medications, test results, reports, etc.) or only highly sensitive data (sexually transmitted infections, HIV/AIDS, drugs/alcohol, mental or reproductive health). Except for information in free-text reports, we redacted EHR data shown to providers according to patients' preferences. Providers could "break the glass" to display redacted information. We prospectively studied this system in one primary care clinic, noting redactions and when users "broke the glass," and surveyed providers about their experiences and opinions.

resultsEight of nine eligible clinic physicians and all 23 clinic staff participated. All 105 patients who enrolled completed the preference program. Providers did not know which of their patients were enrolled, nor their preferences for accessing their EHRs. During the 6-month prospective study, 92 study patients (88 %) returned 261 times, during which providers viewed their EHRs 126 times (48 %). Providers "broke the glass" 102 times, 92 times for patients not in the study and ten times for six returning study patients, all of whom had restricted EHR access. Providers "broke the glass" for six (14 %) of 43 returning study patients with redacted data vs. zero among 49 study patients without redactions (p = 0.01). Although 54 % of providers agreed that patients should have control over who sees their EHR information, 58 % believed restricting EHR access could harm provider-patient relationships and 71 % felt quality of care would suffer.

conclusionsPatients frequently preferred restricting provider access to their EHRs. Providers infrequently overrode patients' preferences to view hidden data. Providers believed that restricting EHR access would adversely impact patient care. Applying Fair Information Practice principles to EHRs will require balancing patient preferences, providers' needs, and health care quality.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCohort StudiesElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansIndianaInformation DisseminationMaleMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedMiddle AgedPatient Access to RecordsPatient PreferencePrimary Health CareProfessional-Patient RelationsProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID25480720
PMCPMC4265224

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.