Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26171082›Full record

ArticleApplied clinical informatics2015

Prevalence and Risk Profile Of Unread Messages To Patients In A Patient Web Portal.

B H Crotty, A Mostaghimi, J O'Brien, A Bajracharya, C Safran, B E Landon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors.

B H CrottyDivision of Clinical Informatics, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center , Boston, MA ; Harvard Medical School , Boston, MA.
A MostaghimiHarvard Medical School , Boston, MA ; Department of Dermatology, Brigham & Women's Hospital , Boston MA.
J O'BrienDivision of Clinical Informatics, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center , Boston, MA.
A BajracharyaDivision of Clinical Informatics, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center , Boston, MA ; Harvard Medical School , Boston, MA.
C SafranDivision of Clinical Informatics, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center , Boston, MA ; Harvard Medical School , Boston, MA.
B E LandonHarvard Medical School , Boston, MA ; Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School , Boston, MA.

Funding

RESEARCH TRAINING-MEDICAL INFORMATICS 90T15LM007092 · NLM · HARVARD UNIVERSITY (SCH OF PUBLIC HLTH) · PI Nils Gehlenborg · 1992 to 2026
$32.8M
InfoSAGE Information Sharing Across Generation and EnvironmentsR01HS021495 · AHRQ · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI SAFRAN, CHARLES · 2013 to 2017
$2.4M
AHRQ HHS R01 HS021495NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007092NLM NIH HHS T15LM007092PHS HHS T32HP12706
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExcitement around the adoption of electronic communication between physicians and patients is tempered by the possibility of increased clinical and legal risk. If patients do not read messages in a timely fashion, duplicative communication efforts may be required and patient safety may be jeopardized.

objectiveWe sought to assess the prevalence and risk profile of unread messages in a mature patient portal.

methodsWe analyzed six years of messages (2005-2010) from physicians to patients to determine the prevalence and associated characteristics of unread messages in a patient portal. We focused on clinical messages, and excluded announcements. Because some physicians sent clinical messages to groups of patients, we labeled messages sent to more than 5 patients as "outreach" messages and excluded them from general analyses. We performed a chart review of 75 clinical messages to assess for harm.

resultsWe found that 3% of clinical messages were unread after 21 days. Messages arriving outside of business hours were slightly more likely to go unread (RR 1.15 95% CI 1.11-1.19). Patients who were male (OR 1.14 CI 1.04-1.26) African American (OR 1.69 CI 1.29-2.22) or Hispanic (OR 1.74 CI 1.17-2.59), or in the lowest income group (OR 1.72 CI 1.19-2.49) were more likely to have unread messages. Chart review showed no evidence of harm, but 13% of sampled unread messages were associated with potential delays in care. Incidentally, we found 50% of the physician-initiated outreach messages were unread.

conclusionsOverall, secure messaging appears a safe form of communication, but systems to notify senders when messages are unread may have value. While most clinical messages were read, many outreach messages were not, providing caution for relying on such systems for information dissemination. Similar to other studies, differences by race and income were observed and require further study.

Indexed as

InternetElectronic MailHumansMalePatient SafetyPhysiciansPrevalenceRiskTime Factorscommunicationelectronic health recordsemailPersonal health recordssecure messaging

Identifiers

PMID26171082
PMCPMC4493337

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.