Physicians’ Perspectives on Inpatient Portals: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".