Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30517969›Full record

Observational studyApplied clinical informatics2018

Understanding Secure Messaging in the Inpatient Environment: A New Avenue for Communication and Patient Engagement.

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

Open access · bronzeAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Applied clinical informatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Cynthia J SieckDepartment of Family Medicine, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States.
Daniel M WalkerDepartment of Family Medicine, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States.
Jennifer L HefnerDepartment of Family Medicine, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States.
Jaclyn VolneyCenter for the Advancement of Team Science, Analytics, and Systems Thinking, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States.
Timothy R HuertaDepartment of Family Medicine, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States.
Ann Scheck McAlearneyDepartment of Family Medicine, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States.
The Ohio State University · US

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
AHRQ HHS P30 HS024379AHRQ HHS R01 HS024091AHRQ HHS R21 HS024349
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient portals, and the secure messaging feature in particular, have been studied in the outpatient setting, but research in the inpatient setting is relatively less mature.

objectiveTo understand the topics discussed in secure messaging in the inpatient environment, we analyzed and categorized messages sent within an inpatient portal. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis observational study examined the content of all secure messages sent from December 2013 to June 2017 within an inpatient portal at a large Midwestern academic medical center (AMC). We analyzed a total of 2,598 messages, categorizing them by sender (patient, family, or care team member), type, and topic, and conducted a descriptive analysis of categories and an examination of code co-occurrence.

resultsPatients were the most frequent message senders (63%); family members sent the fewest messages (10%). We identified five types of messages: Alert/Request; Thanks; Response; Question; and Other (typo/test message). Patient messages included Alerts/Requests (38%), Questions (31%), Statements of Thanks (24%), Response (1.2%), and Other (5%). We also identified 14 nonmutually exclusive message topics: Medication; Procedure/Treatment Plan; Schedule; Pain; Results; Diet; Discharge; Non-Medication Questions; Provider Requests; Symptoms; Custodial; Technical Issues; Potential Error; and Contact Information. Patient message topics most commonly discussed Symptoms (18%), Procedure/Treatment Plan (14%), or Pain (12%).

conclusionOur analysis of secure message content suggests certain message types and topics such as Alerts/Requests and Questions about symptoms and treatment plans are particularly important to patients. These findings demonstrate that both patients and family members utilize the secure messaging function to engage in the care process by posing questions, making requests, and alerting staff to problems. As this technology is implemented in additional facilities, future work should examine how use of secure messaging may be influenced by factors including patients' demographics, reasons for hospitalization, and length of stay.

Indexed as

CommunicationInpatientsPatient ParticipationText MessagingFamilyHumansPatient Care Team

Identifiers

PMID30517969
PMCPMC6281442
OpenAlexW2903283137

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.