Wednesday, April 15, 2015
It Seems That Patient Portals Like The PCEHR Do Not Work Very Well. I Thought We Knew That Already!
This appeared a few days ago:
APR 8, 2015 7:58am ET
Designed to allow patients to view personal health and billing information as well as schedule appointments, patient portals have thus far proven to be disappointing in terms of increasing patient engagement, improving clinical outcomes and reducing costs.
That’s the finding of new HIMSS Analytics online survey of executives from 114 healthcare organizations and a focus group including nine executives. According to the survey, the top drivers for patient engagement are to enhance and improve the health of the community (77 percent), the quest to build brand loyalty for patients (77 percent), and meeting Meaningful Use requirements (60 percent).
Patient portals are often touted as the ultimate patient-centric tool aimed at improving engagement by allowing patients to be the source of control and fostering transparency. However, what’s needed are next-generation portals with functionality that will enable patients to become partners in their own care, according to those surveyed. Specifically, respondents say they are seeking functionality such as e-visits or e-consultations (80 percent), interoperability across multiple providers (70 percent), health evaluation and coaching (70 percent), and tele-visits (50 percent).
About two-thirds of survey respondents are using portals provided by their electronic health record vendors. In theory, EHR systems can help facilitate these objectives via the use of patient portals.
According to the survey: 71 percent of respondents who have an engagement strategy are using portal technology to meet current minimum Meaningful Use requirements for functionality and data sharing from a single source; 54 percent are using portals that offer a combination of patient services, technology and content; and 51 percent are using portals as a configurable, interoperable information exchange platform for data sharing from multiple sources.
Interestingly, highlighted in bold, we note all the things patients would like in a portal are not common are especially are absent from the PCEHR on-line portal.
More evidence that the PCEHR may not have been as well thought out as might have been hoped.
Posted by Dr David More MB PhD FACHI at Wednesday, April 15, 2015