Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29945860›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2018

Validation of a Novel Electronic Health Record Patient Portal Advance Care Planning Delivery System.

Seuli Bose-Brill, Michelle Feeney, Laura Prater, Laura Miles, Angela Corbett, Stephen Koesters

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Contemporary use of real-world data for clinical trial conduct in the United States: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  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

6 authors.

Seuli Bose-BrillDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4290-8992
Michelle FeeneyMedical Student Research Program, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6239-6571
Laura PraterCollege of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3700-0691
Laura MilesDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9563-1264
Angela CorbettDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8555-1105
Stephen KoestersDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0984-638X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvance care planning allows patients to articulate their future care preferences should they no longer be able to make decisions on their own. Early advance care planning in outpatient settings provides benefits such as less aggressive care and fewer hospitalizations, yet it is underutilized due to barriers such as provider time constraints and communication complexity. Novel methods, such as patient portals, provide a unique opportunity to conduct advance care planning previsit planning for outpatient care. This follow-up to our pilot study aimed to conduct pragmatic testing of a novel electronic health record-tethered framework and its effects on advance care planning delivery in a real-world primary care setting.

objectiveOur intervention tested a previsit advance care planning workflow centered around a framework sent via secure electronic health record-linked patient portal in a real-world clinical setting. The primary objective of this study was to determine its impact on frequency and quality of advance care planning documentation.

methodsWe conducted a pragmatic trial including 2 sister clinical sites, one site implementing the intervention and the other continuing standard care. A total of 419 patients aged between 50 and 93 years with active portal accounts received intervention (n=200) or standard care (n=219). Chart review analyzed the presence of advance care planning and its quality and was graded with previously established scoring criteria based on advance care planning best practice guidelines from multiple nations.

resultsA total of 19.5% (39/200) of patients who received previsit planning responded to the framework. We found that the intervention site had statistically significant improvement in new advance care planning documentation rates (P<.01) and quality (P<.01) among all eligible patients. Advance care planning documentation rates increased by 105% (19/39 to 39/39) and quality improved among all patients who engaged in the previsit planning framework (n=39). Among eligible patients aged between 50 and 60 years at the intervention site, advance care planning documentation rates increased by 37% (27/96 to 37/96). Advance care planning documentation rates increased 34% among high users (27/67 to 36/67).

conclusionsAdvance care planning previsit planning using a secure electronic health record-supported patient portal framework yielded improvement in the presence of advance care planning documentation, with highest improvement in active patient portal users and patients aged between 50 and 60 years. Targeted previsit patient portal advance care planning delivery in these populations can potentially improve the quality of care in these populations.

Indexed as

Advance Care PlanningAgedAged, 80 and overElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient PortalsPilot ProjectsValidation Studies as Topicadvance care planningelectronic health recordspatient portal

Identifiers

PMID29945860
PMCPMC6039766

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.