Provider Responses to Patients Controlling Access to their Electronic Health Records: A Prospective Cohort Study in Primary Care

William M. Tierney, Sheri A. Alpert, Amy Byrket, Kelly Caine, Jeremy C. Leventhal, Eric M. Meslin, Peter Schwartz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

CONCLUSIONS: Patients frequently preferred restricting provider access to their EHRs. Providers infrequently overrode patients’ preferences to view hidden data. Providers believed that restricting EHR access would adversely impact patient care. Applying Fair Information Practice principles to EHRs will require balancing patient preferences, providers’ needs, and health care quality.

RESULTS: Eight of nine eligible clinic physicians and all 23 clinic staff participated. All 105 patients who enrolled completed the preference program. Providers did not know which of their patients were enrolled, nor their preferences for accessing their EHRs. During the 6-month prospective study, 92 study patients (88 %) returned 261 times, during which providers viewed their EHRs 126 times (48 %). Providers “broke the glass” 102 times, 92 times for patients not in the study and ten times for six returning study patients, all of whom had restricted EHR access. Providers “broke the glass” for six (14 %) of 43 returning study patients with redacted data vs. zero among 49 study patients without redactions (p = 0.01). Although 54 % of providers agreed that patients should have control over who sees their EHR information, 58 % believed restricting EHR access could harm provider–patient relationships and 71 % felt quality of care would suffer.

INTRODUCTION: Applying Fair Information Practice principles to electronic health records (EHRs) requires allowing patient control over who views their data.

METHODS: We designed a program that captures patients’ preferences for provider access to an urban health system’s EHR. Patients could allow or restrict providers’ access to all data (diagnoses, medications, test results, reports, etc.) or only highly sensitive data (sexually transmitted infections, HIV/AIDS, drugs/alcohol, mental or reproductive health). Except for information in free-text reports, we redacted EHR data shown to providers according to patients’ preferences. Providers could “break the glass” to display redacted information. We prospectively studied this system in one primary care clinic, noting redactions and when users “broke the glass,” and surveyed providers about their experiences and opinions.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)31-37
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of General Internal Medicine
Volume30
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Electronic Health Records
Primary Health Care
Cohort Studies
Prospective Studies
Patient Preference
Glass
Quality of Health Care
Data Display
Urban Health
Anti-HIV Agents
Reproductive Health
Sexually Transmitted Diseases
Health Personnel
Patient Care
Mental Health
Alcohols
HIV
Physicians

Keywords

  • electronic health records
  • fair information practices
  • patient preferences
  • quality of care

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

Provider Responses to Patients Controlling Access to their Electronic Health Records : A Prospective Cohort Study in Primary Care. / Tierney, William M.; Alpert, Sheri A.; Byrket, Amy; Caine, Kelly; Leventhal, Jeremy C.; Meslin, Eric M.; Schwartz, Peter.

In: Journal of General Internal Medicine, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2014, p. 31-37.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Tierney, William M. ; Alpert, Sheri A. ; Byrket, Amy ; Caine, Kelly ; Leventhal, Jeremy C. ; Meslin, Eric M. ; Schwartz, Peter. / Provider Responses to Patients Controlling Access to their Electronic Health Records : A Prospective Cohort Study in Primary Care. In: Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2014 ; Vol. 30, No. 1. pp. 31-37.
@article{a10508455bf747fdba87c33148a0e02a,
title = "Provider Responses to Patients Controlling Access to their Electronic Health Records: A Prospective Cohort Study in Primary Care",
abstract = "CONCLUSIONS: Patients frequently preferred restricting provider access to their EHRs. Providers infrequently overrode patients’ preferences to view hidden data. Providers believed that restricting EHR access would adversely impact patient care. Applying Fair Information Practice principles to EHRs will require balancing patient preferences, providers’ needs, and health care quality.RESULTS: Eight of nine eligible clinic physicians and all 23 clinic staff participated. All 105 patients who enrolled completed the preference program. Providers did not know which of their patients were enrolled, nor their preferences for accessing their EHRs. During the 6-month prospective study, 92 study patients (88 {\%}) returned 261 times, during which providers viewed their EHRs 126 times (48 {\%}). Providers “broke the glass” 102 times, 92 times for patients not in the study and ten times for six returning study patients, all of whom had restricted EHR access. Providers “broke the glass” for six (14 {\%}) of 43 returning study patients with redacted data vs. zero among 49 study patients without redactions (p = 0.01). Although 54 {\%} of providers agreed that patients should have control over who sees their EHR information, 58 {\%} believed restricting EHR access could harm provider–patient relationships and 71 {\%} felt quality of care would suffer.INTRODUCTION: Applying Fair Information Practice principles to electronic health records (EHRs) requires allowing patient control over who views their data.METHODS: We designed a program that captures patients’ preferences for provider access to an urban health system’s EHR. Patients could allow or restrict providers’ access to all data (diagnoses, medications, test results, reports, etc.) or only highly sensitive data (sexually transmitted infections, HIV/AIDS, drugs/alcohol, mental or reproductive health). Except for information in free-text reports, we redacted EHR data shown to providers according to patients’ preferences. Providers could “break the glass” to display redacted information. We prospectively studied this system in one primary care clinic, noting redactions and when users “broke the glass,” and surveyed providers about their experiences and opinions.",
keywords = "electronic health records, fair information practices, patient preferences, quality of care",
author = "Tierney, {William M.} and Alpert, {Sheri A.} and Amy Byrket and Kelly Caine and Leventhal, {Jeremy C.} and Meslin, {Eric M.} and Peter Schwartz",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1007/s11606-014-3053-0",
language = "English",
volume = "30",
pages = "31--37",
journal = "Journal of General Internal Medicine",
issn = "0884-8734",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Provider Responses to Patients Controlling Access to their Electronic Health Records

T2 - A Prospective Cohort Study in Primary Care

AU - Tierney, William M.

AU - Alpert, Sheri A.

AU - Byrket, Amy

AU - Caine, Kelly

AU - Leventhal, Jeremy C.

AU - Meslin, Eric M.

AU - Schwartz, Peter

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - CONCLUSIONS: Patients frequently preferred restricting provider access to their EHRs. Providers infrequently overrode patients’ preferences to view hidden data. Providers believed that restricting EHR access would adversely impact patient care. Applying Fair Information Practice principles to EHRs will require balancing patient preferences, providers’ needs, and health care quality.RESULTS: Eight of nine eligible clinic physicians and all 23 clinic staff participated. All 105 patients who enrolled completed the preference program. Providers did not know which of their patients were enrolled, nor their preferences for accessing their EHRs. During the 6-month prospective study, 92 study patients (88 %) returned 261 times, during which providers viewed their EHRs 126 times (48 %). Providers “broke the glass” 102 times, 92 times for patients not in the study and ten times for six returning study patients, all of whom had restricted EHR access. Providers “broke the glass” for six (14 %) of 43 returning study patients with redacted data vs. zero among 49 study patients without redactions (p = 0.01). Although 54 % of providers agreed that patients should have control over who sees their EHR information, 58 % believed restricting EHR access could harm provider–patient relationships and 71 % felt quality of care would suffer.INTRODUCTION: Applying Fair Information Practice principles to electronic health records (EHRs) requires allowing patient control over who views their data.METHODS: We designed a program that captures patients’ preferences for provider access to an urban health system’s EHR. Patients could allow or restrict providers’ access to all data (diagnoses, medications, test results, reports, etc.) or only highly sensitive data (sexually transmitted infections, HIV/AIDS, drugs/alcohol, mental or reproductive health). Except for information in free-text reports, we redacted EHR data shown to providers according to patients’ preferences. Providers could “break the glass” to display redacted information. We prospectively studied this system in one primary care clinic, noting redactions and when users “broke the glass,” and surveyed providers about their experiences and opinions.

AB - CONCLUSIONS: Patients frequently preferred restricting provider access to their EHRs. Providers infrequently overrode patients’ preferences to view hidden data. Providers believed that restricting EHR access would adversely impact patient care. Applying Fair Information Practice principles to EHRs will require balancing patient preferences, providers’ needs, and health care quality.RESULTS: Eight of nine eligible clinic physicians and all 23 clinic staff participated. All 105 patients who enrolled completed the preference program. Providers did not know which of their patients were enrolled, nor their preferences for accessing their EHRs. During the 6-month prospective study, 92 study patients (88 %) returned 261 times, during which providers viewed their EHRs 126 times (48 %). Providers “broke the glass” 102 times, 92 times for patients not in the study and ten times for six returning study patients, all of whom had restricted EHR access. Providers “broke the glass” for six (14 %) of 43 returning study patients with redacted data vs. zero among 49 study patients without redactions (p = 0.01). Although 54 % of providers agreed that patients should have control over who sees their EHR information, 58 % believed restricting EHR access could harm provider–patient relationships and 71 % felt quality of care would suffer.INTRODUCTION: Applying Fair Information Practice principles to electronic health records (EHRs) requires allowing patient control over who views their data.METHODS: We designed a program that captures patients’ preferences for provider access to an urban health system’s EHR. Patients could allow or restrict providers’ access to all data (diagnoses, medications, test results, reports, etc.) or only highly sensitive data (sexually transmitted infections, HIV/AIDS, drugs/alcohol, mental or reproductive health). Except for information in free-text reports, we redacted EHR data shown to providers according to patients’ preferences. Providers could “break the glass” to display redacted information. We prospectively studied this system in one primary care clinic, noting redactions and when users “broke the glass,” and surveyed providers about their experiences and opinions.

KW - electronic health records

KW - fair information practices

KW - patient preferences

KW - quality of care

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84923144297&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84923144297&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11606-014-3053-0

DO - 10.1007/s11606-014-3053-0

M3 - Article

C2 - 25480720

AN - SCOPUS:84923144297

VL - 30

SP - 31

EP - 37

JO - Journal of General Internal Medicine

JF - Journal of General Internal Medicine

SN - 0884-8734

IS - 1

ER -