Physicians’ Perspectives on Inpatient Portals: Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Inpatient portals are online platforms that allow patients to access their personal health information and monitor their health while in the acute care setting. Despite their potential to improve quality of care and empower patients and families to participate in their treatment, adoption remains low. Outpatient portal studies have shown that physician endorsement can drive patients' adoption of these systems. Insights on physicians' perspectives on use of these platforms can help improve patient and physician satisfaction and inpatient portal uptake. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review is to better understand physicians' perspectives toward inpatient portals. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted for studies published between 1994 and November 2021 using keywords for physicians' perspectives toward patient portals and personal health records. Databases included PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus. Articles solely focused on nonphysician clinicians or addressing only outpatient settings or shared notes were excluded from this review. Two reviewers performed title, abstract, and full-text screening independently. Bias assessment was performed using the JBI SUMARI Critical Appraisal Tool (Joanna Briggs Institute). Inductive thematic analysis was done based on themes reported by original authors. Data were synthesized using narrative synthesis and reported according to overarching themes. RESULTS: In all, 4199 articles were collected and 9 included. All but 2 of the studies were conducted in the United States. Common themes identified were communication and privacy, portal functionality and patient use, and workflow. In studies where physicians had no prior patient portal experience, concerns were expressed about communication issues created by patients' access to laboratory results and potential impact on existing workflow. Concerns about negative communication impacts were not borne out in postimplementation studies. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians perceived inpatient portals to be beneficial to patients and saw improvement in communication as a result. This is consistent with outpatient studies and highlights the need to improve training on portal use and include physicians during the design process. Health care organizations and information technology entities can take steps to increasing clinician comfort. Physician concerns involving patient portal usage and managing patient expectations also need to be addressed. With improved clinician support, initial pessimism about communication and workload issues can be overcome. Limitations of this review include the small number of pre- and postimplementation studies found. This is also not a review of perspectives on open notes, which merits separate discussion.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,062 | 0,095 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,029 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,016 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».