MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Security and Privacy Risks Associated With Adult Patient Portal Accounts in US Hospitals

2020· article· en· W3021262580 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Internal Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality
KeywordsMedicinePatient portalInternet privacyPatient privacyMEDLINEMedical emergencyHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Patient portals can help caregivers better manage care for patients, but how caregivers access the patient portal could threaten patient security and privacy. Objective: To identify the proportions of hospitals that provide proxy accounts to caregivers of adult patients, endorse password sharing with caregivers, and enable patients to restrict the types of information seen by their caregivers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This national cross-sectional study included a telephone survey and was conducted from May 21, 2018, to December 20, 2018. The randomly selected sample comprised 1 independent hospital and 1 health system-affiliated general medical hospital from every US state and the District of Columbia. Specialty hospitals and those that did not have a patient portal in place were excluded. An interviewer posing as the daughter of an older adult patient called each hospital to ask about the hospital's patient portal practices. The interviewer used a structured questionnaire to obtain information on proxy account availability, password sharing, and patient control of their own information. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of hospitals that provided proxy accounts to caregivers of adult patients. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of hospitals with personnel who endorsed password sharing and the proportion that allowed adult patients to limit the types of information available to caregivers. Results: After exclusions, a total of 102 (51 health system-affiliated and 51 independent) hospitals were included in the study. Of these hospitals, 69 (68%) provided proxy accounts to caregivers of adult patients and 26 (25%) did not. In 7 of 102 hospitals (7%), the surveyed personnel did not know if proxy accounts were available. In the 94 hospitals asked about password sharing between the patient and caregiver, personnel in 42 hospitals (45%) endorsed the practice. Among hospitals that provided proxy accounts, only 13 of the 69 hospitals (19%) offered controls that enabled patients to restrict the types of information their proxies could see. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that almost half of surveyed hospital personnel recommended password sharing and that few hospitals enabled patients to limit the types of information seen by those with proxy access. These findings suggest that hospitals and electronic health record (HER) vendors need to improve the availability and setup process of proxy accounts in a way that allows caregivers to care for patients without violating their privacy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it