PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Daniel Z Sands

Publications and source records attributed to Daniel Z Sands.

15 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Personal health records: definitions, benefits, and strategies for overcoming barriers to adoption.

Recently there has been a remarkable upsurge in activity surrounding the adoption of personal health record (PHR) systems for patients and consumers. The biomedical literature does not yet adequately describe the potential capabilities and utility of PHR systems. In addition, the lack of a proven business case for widespread deployment hinders PHR adoption. In a 2005 working symposium, the American Medical Informatics Association's College of Medical Informatics discussed the issues surrounding personal health record systems and developed recommendations for PHR-promoting activities. Personal health record systems are more than just static repositories for patient data; they combine data, knowledge, and software tools, which help patients to become active participants in their own care. When PHRs are integrated with electronic health record systems, they provide greater benefits than would stand-alone systems for consumers. This paper summarizes the College Symposium discussions on PHR systems and provides definitions, system characteristics, technical architectures, benefits, barriers to adoption, and strategies for increasing adoption.

Attitude to Computers↗
PubMed2005

Patient-reported service quality on a medicine unit.

PURPOSE: Service quality, defined as patients' self-reported experience of care, is used as a metric for evaluating quality. Most studies rely on retrospective consumer surveys rather then more intensive data collection methods, possibly underestimating the incidence of service quality incidents. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The objective of the study was to characterize patient-reported service quality deficiencies on a general medicine unit. We studied a cohort of 228 adult inpatients at a Boston teaching hospital. Investigators reviewed medical records and interviewed patients during the hospitalization and by telephone after discharge. Physician investigators classified patients' incident reports. We calculated the rate of service incidents, characterized incident types, and used multivariable Poisson and logistic regression models to examine factors associated with patient reporting and overall rating of the hospitalization. RESULTS: Eighty-eight (38.6%) of 228 patients experienced 157 service quality incidents during the admission, for a rate of 68.9 incidents per 100 admissions. The most common service quality problems involved waits and delays (n = 45), problems with communication between staff and patients (n = 36), and environmental issues and amenities (n = 35). In the multivariable analysis, men (IRR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.2), patients covered by hospitalists (1.5, 1.1-2.2), and patients with more medication allergies (1.1 per allergy, 1.1-1.2) reported more service incidents; patients with Medicaid or free care reported fewer (0.5, 0.3-0.9). Patients with service quality incidents were more likely to describe the hospitalization as other than excellent (adjusted OR 1.8 per incident, 95% CI 1.3-2.5). CONCLUSION: Service quality deficiencies are common among medical inpatients, and are strongly associated with patients' dissatisfaction with the hospitalization.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Who uses the patient internet portal? The PatientSite experience.

OBJECTIVE: Although the patient Internet portal is a potentially transformative technology, there is little scientific information about the demographic and clinical characteristics of portal enrollees and the features that they access. DESIGN: We describe two pilot studies of a comprehensive Internet portal called PatientSite. These pilots include a prospective one-year cohort study of all patients who enrolled in April 2003 and a case-control study in 2004 of enrollees and nonenrollees at two hospital-based primary care practices. MEASUREMENTS: The cohort study tracked patient enrollment and features in PatientSite that enrollees accessed, such as laboratory and radiology results, prescription renewals, appointment requests, managed care referrals, and clinical messaging. The case-control study used medical record review to compare the demographic and clinical characteristics of 100 randomly selected PatientSite enrollees and 100 nonenrollees. RESULTS: PatientSite use grew steadily after its introduction. New enrollees logged in most frequently in the first month, but 26% to 77% of the cohort continued to access the portal at least monthly. They most often examined laboratory and radiology results and sent clinical messages to their providers. PatientSite enrollees were younger and more affluent and had fewer medical problems than nonenrollees. CONCLUSION: Expanding the use of patient portals will require an understanding of obstacles that prevent access for those who might benefit most from this technology.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

What can hospitalized patients tell us about adverse events? Learning from patient-reported incidents.

PURPOSE: Little is known about how well hospitalized patients can identify errors or injuries in their care. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to elicit incident reports from hospital inpatients in order to identify and characterize adverse events and near-miss errors. SUBJECTS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of 228 adult inpatients on a medicine unit of a Boston teaching hospital. METHODS: Investigators reviewed medical records and interviewed patients during the hospitalization and by telephone 10 days after discharge about "problems,""mistakes," and "injuries" that occurred. Physician investigators classified patients' reports. We calculated event rates and used multivariable Poisson regression models to examine the factors associated with patient-reported events. RESULTS: Of 264 eligible patients, 228 (86%) agreed to participate and completed 528 interviews. Seventeen patients (8%) experienced 20 adverse events; 1 was serious. Eight patients (4%) experienced 13 near misses; 5 were serious or life threatening. Eleven (55%) of 20 adverse events and 4 (31%) of 13 near misses were documented in the medical record, but none were found in the hospital incident reporting system. Patients with 3 or more drug allergies were more likely to report errors compared with patients without drug allergies (incidence rate ratio 4.7, 95% CI 1.7, 13.4). CONCLUSION: Inpatients can identify adverse events affecting their care. Many patient-identified events are not captured by the hospital incident reporting system or recorded in the medical record. Engaging hospitalized patients as partners in identifying medical errors and injuries is a potentially promising approach for enhancing patient safety.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Lessons from a patient partnership intervention to prevent adverse drug events.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety 'best practices' that call for patient participation to prevent adverse drug events have not been rigorously evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To consider lessons learned from a patient partnership intervention to prevent adverse drug events among medical in-patients. DESIGN: Prospective randomized, controlled pilot trial. SETTING: Boston teaching hospital. Patients. Two hundred and nine adult in-patients on a general medicine unit. INTERVENTION: Intervention patients (n = 107) received drug safety information and their medication list; controls (n = 102) received drug safety information only. Measurements. Adverse drug events and close-call drug errors were identified using chart review and incident reports from nurses, pharmacists, and physicians. Patients and clinicians were surveyed about the intervention. RESULTS: In 1053 patient-days at risk, 11 patients experienced 12 adverse drug events and 16 patients experienced 18 close calls. There was a non-significant difference between intervention patients and controls in survey responses and in the adverse drug event rate (8.4% versus 2.9%, P = 0.12) and close-call rate (7.5% versus 9.8%, P = 0.57). Eleven percent of patients were aware of drug-related mistakes during the hospitalization. Among nurse respondents, 29% indicated that at least one medication error was prevented when a patient or family member identified a problem. CONCLUSION: Partnering with in-patients to prevent adverse drug events is a promising strategy but requires further study to document its efficacy.

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems↗
PubMed2004

Experiences of patients who were early adopters of electronic communication with their physician: satisfaction, benefits, and concerns.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences of patients who were early adopters of e-mail communication with their physicians. METHODS: Patients' experiences were assessed with an Internetbased survey of 1881 individuals and in-depth telephone follow-up interviews with 56 individuals who used e-mail to communicate with providers. Two investigators qualitatively coded interview comments independently, with differences adjudicated by group consensus. RESULTS: A total of 311 (16.5%) of the 1881 individuals reported using electronic mail to communicate with their physicians. Compared with the population-based Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, users of e-mail with physicians were twice as likely to have a college education, were younger, were less frequently ethnic minorities, and more frequently reported fair/poor health. Among the 311 patients who used e-mail with their physicians, the most frequent topics were results of laboratory testing and prescription renewals. However, many of the 311 users (21%) also reported using asynchronous e-mail inappropriately to convey urgent or sensitive issues (suicidality, chest pain, etc). Almost all (95%) perceived that e-mail was more efficient than the telephone. Important benefits uncovered from the interviews were that some patients felt more emboldened to ask questions in e-mail compared with face-to-face communication with doctors, and liked the ability to save the e-mail messages. Users also expressed concerns about privacy. CONCLUSION: Patients that use electronic communication with their physicians find the communication efficient for disease management. Further patient education about inappropriate use of e-mail for urgent issues is needed.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2003

Physicians' decisions to override computerized drug alerts in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Although computerized physician order entry reduces medication errors among inpatients, little is known about the use of this system in primary care. METHODS: We calculated the override rate among 3481 consecutive alerts generated at 5 adult primary care practices that use a common computerized physician order entry system for prescription writing. For detailed review, we selected a random sample of 67 alerts in which physicians did not prescribe an alerted medication and 122 alerts that resulted in a written prescription. We identified factors associated with the physicians' decisions to override a medication alert, and determined whether an adverse drug event (ADE) occurred. RESULTS: Physicians overrode 91.2% of drug allergy and 89.4% of high-severity drug interaction alerts. In the multivariable analysis using the medical chart review sample (n = 189), physicians were less likely to prescribe an alerted medication if the prescriber was a house officer (odds ratio [OR], 0.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-0.84) and if the patient had many drug allergies (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53-0.93). They were more likely to override alerts for renewals compared with new prescriptions (OR, 17.74; 95% CI, 5.60-56.18). We found no ADEs in cases where physicians observed the alert and 3 ADEs among patients with alert overrides, a nonsignificant difference (P =.55). Physician reviewers judged that 36.5% of the alerts were inappropriate. CONCLUSIONS: Few physicians changed their prescription in response to a drug allergy or interaction alert, and there were few ADEs, suggesting that the threshold for alerting was set too low. Computerized physician order entry systems should suppress alerts for renewals of medication combinations that patients currently tolerate.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Experiences of physicians who frequently use e-mail with patients.

Despite its potential, the use of e-mail for physician-patient communication has not been widely adopted. Our purpose was to survey the experiences of physicians who are early adopters of the technology. Physicians, identified through a professional Internet information portal, completed a survey, including an assessment of satisfaction with using e-mail with patients. We identified 204 physicians who reported using e-mail with patients on a daily basis. Average age of the respondents was 49 years, 82% were male, and 35% were primary-care physicians. Among the 204 frequent users, commonly reported e-mail topics were new, nonurgent symptoms, and questions about lab results. Despite their daily use, 25% were not satisfied with physician-patient e-mail. The most important reasons for using e-mail with patients among those who were satisfied were "time saving" (33%) and "helps deliver better care" (28%) compared with "patient requested" (80%) among those who were not satisfied (p <.01). Dissatisfied physicians reported concerns about time demands, medicolegal risks, and ability of patients to use e-mail appropriately. Although the majority of these "vanguard" physicians reported benefits, some did not recommend that colleagues adopt this new technology. Increasing integration into practice to enhance time-saving aspects and improve patient education might lead to more sustained use of this promising communication tool.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Housestaff use of medical references in ambulatory care.

We surveyed medical house officers at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center during their ambulatory rotations about their utilization of reference materials, assessing such factors as frequency, the mode of reference, and specific choice of resources. The collected data were significantly illustrative of the shift from paper-based resources to digital references. These findings confirm that availability should be of utmost priority when designing references for physicians in training.

Ambulatory Care↗
PubMed2002

Value of abdominal CT in the emergency department for patients with abdominal pain.

The purpose of our study is to demonstrate the value of CT in the emergency department (ED) for patients with non-traumatic abdominal pain. Between August 1998 and April 1999, 536 consecutive patients with non-traumatic abdominal pain were entered into our study. Using a computer order entry system, physicians were asked to identify: (a) their most likely diagnosis; (b) their level of certainty in their diagnosis; (c) if they thought CT would be normal or abnormal; (d) their treatment plan (prior to knowledge of the CT results); and (e) their role in deciding to order CT. This information was correlated with each patient's post-CT diagnosis and subsequent management. Pre- and post-CT diagnoses were concordant in 200 of 536 (37%) patients. The physicians' certainty in the accuracy of their pre-CT diagnosis was less than high in 88% of patients. Prior to CT, the management plan included hospital admission for 402 patients. Following CT, only 312 patients were actually admitted; thus, the net impact of performing CT was to obviate the need for hospital admission in 90 of 536 (17%) of patients with abdominal pain. Prior to CT, 67 of 536 (13%) of all patients would have undergone immediate surgery; however, following CT only 25 (5%) actually required immediate surgery. Among patients with the four most common pre-CT diagnoses (appendicitis, abscess, diverticulitis, and urinary tract stones) CT had the greatest impact on hospital admission and surgical management for patients with suspected appendicitis. For patients with suspected appendicitis, CT reduced the hospital admission rate in 28% (26 of 91) of patients and changed the surgical management in 40% (39 of 91) of patients. Our study demonstrates the advantage of performing abdominal CT in the ED for patients with non-traumatic abdominal pain.

Abdomen, Acute↗
PubMed2002

A usability study of physicians interaction with a paper-based patient record system and a graphical-based electronic patient record system.

The user interface of an electronic patient record system can significantly improve user acceptance and ease its adoption process. The design of a user interface should take into consideration the characteristics and the needs of the user incorporating usability engineering principles in the lifecycle of its development. In this paper we describe a study of physician interaction with a paper-based patient record system and a graphical-based electronic patient record system. The usability attributes of learnability, efficiency and satisfaction are evaluated on the whole spectrum of physicians' activities with patient record systems. The results of the study did not reveal a significant difference in the overall time to complete typical physician tasks. However, on average physicians can perform viewing tasks faster, documenting tasks slower and ordering tasks at about the same speed on the graphical-based system than on the paper based system. Physicians were found to be significantly more satisfied with the graphical-based system than with the paper-based system. The results also revealed that physicians with higher levels of computer literacy and typing skills can complete typical tasks in significantly less time on a graphical-based system than physicians with lower levels of computer literacy and typing skills.

Attitude to Computers↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Doctors who are using e-mail with their patients: a qualitative exploration.

BACKGROUND: Despite the potential for rapid, asynchronous, documentable communication, the use of e-mail for physician-patient communication has not been widely adopted. OBJECTIVE: To survey physicians currently using e-mail with their patients daily to understand their experiences. METHODS: In-depth phone interviews of 45 physicians currently using e-mail with patients were audio taped and transcribed verbatim. Two investigators independently qualitatively coded comments. Differences were adjudicated by group consensus. RESULTS: Almost all of the 642 comments from these physicians who currently use e-mail with patients daily could be grouped into 1 of 4 broad domains: (1) e-mail access and content, (2) effects of e-mail on the doctor-patient relationship, (3) managing clinical issues by e-mail, and (4) integrating e-mail into office processes. The most consistent theme was that e-mail communication enhances chronic-disease management. Many physicians also reported improved continuity of care and increased flexibility in responding to nonurgent issues. Integration of e-mail into daily workflow, such as utilization of office personnel, appears to be a significant area of concern for many of the physicians. For other issues, such as content, efficiency of e-mail, and confidentiality, there were diverging experiences and opinions. Physicians appear to be selective in choosing which patients they will communicate with via e-mail, but the criteria for selection is unclear. CONCLUSION: These physician respondents did perceive benefits to e-mail with a select group of patients. Several areas, such as identifying clinical situations where e-mail communication is effective, incorporating e-mail into office flow, and being reimbursed for online medical care/communication, need to be addressed before this mode of communication diffuses into most practices.

Adult↗