Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30014267›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical systems2018

Framework for Evaluating and Implementing Inpatient Portals: a Multi-stakeholder Perspective.

Daniel M Walker, Jennifer L Hefner, Cynthia J Sieck, Timothy R Huerta, Ann Scheck McAlearney

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical systems, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. SEIPS 101 and seven simple SEIPS tools.BMJ quality & safety · 2021
    Review
  8. Human factors/ergonomics work system analysis of patient work: state of the science and future directions.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2021
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Inpatient portal clusters: identifying user groups based on portal features.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019
    Article
  13. Observational
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

5 authors.

Daniel M WalkerDepartment of Family Medicine, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5434-3162
Jennifer L HefnerDepartment of Family Medicine, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Cynthia J SieckDepartment of Family Medicine, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Timothy R HuertaDepartment of Family Medicine, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Ann Scheck McAlearneyDepartment of Family Medicine, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. Ann.McAlearney@osumc.edu.

Funding

The Institute for the Design of Environments Aligned for Patient Safety (IDEA4PS)P30HS024379 · AHRQ · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI MCALEARNEY, ANN SCHECK · 2015 to 2015
$4.0M
High Tech and High Touch (HT2): Transforming patient engagement through portal technology at the bedsideR01HS024091 · AHRQ · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI MCALEARNEY, ANN SCHECK · 2015 to 2018
$967k
Portals in Inpatient Care (PIC): Evaluating the Usability, Use and Patient Experience Associated with Patient Portal Technology at the BedsideR21HS024349 · AHRQ · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI MCALEARNEY, ANN SCHECK · 2015 to 2015
$299k
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality P30-HS024379Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality R01 HS024091-01Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality R21HS024349-01AHRQ HHS P30 HS024379AHRQ HHS R01 HS024091AHRQ HHS R21 HS024349
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Inpatient portals are emerging as an important tool to support patient care and are increasingly being adopted in hospitals. However, best practices concerning the implementation, use, and impact of these portals are poorly understood. To improve evaluation and implementation efforts, this paper develops a logic model that can help researchers and hospital managers in deploying and assessing the impact of inpatient portals. Guided by the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) framework, we held a series of two focus groups (n = 12 and n = 8, respectively) and an online forum (n = 14) including hospital administrators, clinicians, patients, and information technology team members to learn from these stakeholders about the system-wide implementation and evaluation of an inpatient portal at an academic medical center in the United States. These sessions were supplemented with a Nominal Group process to assess the relative importance and feasibility of evaluation areas. Our Logic Model highlights that patients are at the center of the multi-stakeholder context within which inpatient portals are being implemented, and that collaborative work is necessary for successful implementation and evaluation of the tool. The Model also identifies priority areas for evaluation, and it suggests measures and data sources applicable for quality improvement and research. Applying the SEIPS 2.0 framework, this Logic Model captures the multiple relevant stakeholder perspectives by describing the organizational structures, processes, and outcomes that pertain to inpatient portals. This Model provides specific evaluation suggestions for hospital managers seeking to implement inpatient portals as well as for researchers seeking to evaluate this new technology.

Indexed as

ErgonomicsInpatientsPatient PortalsDelivery of Health CareHumansMedical InformaticsOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareUnited StatesEvaluation frameworkHospitalsLogic modelPatient portals

Identifiers

PMID30014267
PMCPMC12019877

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.